$960,000 went. in 2005, 293, $1.5 million went. 2006, 312 members said no more money, and $319,000. have you no sense of degreenyity around here? let me just finish, i'm reaching a crescendo. don't you have any sense of dignity? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question son the amendment of the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the ayes have it. mr. weiner: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause six of rule 18, further proceedings will be postpone the clerk will read. . mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill page 197, line 10, be considered as read. the chair: without objection. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 197, line 11, intellectual property rights

protections, section 7089, the secretary shall certify in writing to the committees that all actions taken during negotiations of the united nations framework convention on climate change ensure compliance of existing international legal requirements. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> on behalf of the gentleman from california, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 5, printed in house report number 111-193, offered by mr. culberson of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 617, the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: as the designee of mr. lewis i'm pleased to offer this amendment today to give the house the opportunity to keep funding for multilateral assistance at last year's level. in fact, this is actually a 1% increase trying to keep it as close to inflation as we can. i would prefer as a fiscal

conservative to cut far more at this time of record debt, record deficit of increasing unemployment, but we want to give the liberal majority some opportunity to cut somewhere. and if we will not cut foreign multilateral assistance simply by keeping the level of funding at last year's level, plus a little 1% bump, where will we cut? in our personal lives if we have a financial downturn, we -- someone in the family loses a job, if there's been a financial hardship some time in your personal life, if there is as a business you have suffered a dramatic downturn in sales, if you lose money, if your income is reduced, and all of us in our private lives, in the private sector understand that you start to cut expenses. and the first thing to go, for example, in the private sector certainly, is discreationary

dollars in advertising, for example, or in a personal life. as much as i might like to have a swimming pool or to expand the house, you just don't do it when your income is reduced. and the united states of america is in a similar situation. the nation is hurting. unemployment is climbing. we have lost a record number of jobs under the new liberal leadership of this congress, the -- our new liberal administration in the white house, the -- this congress, this president has spent more money in less time than any congress in the history of the united states. in the first six months of this year, under the budget adopted by this new liberal majority, the amount of debt created in the first six months of this year exceeds the amount of debt created from the time of george washington to president george w. bush. the national debt now exceeds $11 trillion. the deficit exceeds $1 trillion.

we as a nation are on a path to become argentina if we don't stop spending money. so those of us in the fiscally conservative minority have offered in the appropriations committee multiple amendments. we have offered amendments on the floor to the limited extent we can under these very restrictive guidelines. we in the conservative minority have offered amendments to cut 5%, 1%, 10%. on every bill on every occasion we searched for some way, somehow that the liberal majority might try to save some of our kids' money. it hasn't happened yet. i haven't seen a cut yet the liberal majority will agree to. this amendment today is simply to title 5, mr. chairman, multilateral assistance, asking that we keep funding at 2009 levels. this is in fact the 2009

spending level is a 16% increase over 2008. and the programs, the international organizations that are included under title 5, include global environmental facility, clean technology fund, there's even a new and completely unauthorized climate technology fund and strategy climate fund that cost a total of $300 million. these have not been approved by congress. these are just stuck into this bill and i know there are a lot of noble good things accomplished by our foreign aid bill. one near and dear to my heart is our support for the state of israel. i personally support mr. weiner's amendment. i think saudi arabia can certainly afford tow their own, pull their own weight. our good friends in israel, i think one of the reasons god blesses the united states of america is that america is the sword and shield of israel. and we have an obligation as a nation to stand behind our friends around the world and

help them. but at a time of economic downturn, at a time when so many americans are losing their jobs, at a time when we as guardians of the u.s. treasury have an obligation to try to save money everywhere we can and follow dave ramsay's advice of don't spend money you don't have, don't borrow money to pay off borrowed money. this amendment is offered today in all sincerity as an effort to try to hold the line. if we won't cut here, mr. chairman, where will we cut? if we won't cut spending for multilateral assistance to foreign aid, which all or constituents get f. we won't cut at the edges in money that we don't need to spend at this level for foreign assistance, where will we cut? are we not going to save any money anywhere, folks? this is a $500 million cut -- excuse me, $500 million savings to keep us at 2009 levels. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mrs. lowey: i claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i understand that it's quite easy in a time fiscal belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the international financial institutions, but i would encourage my colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has serious consequences to u.s. interests. it would cut funding for the asian development fund, it provides basic loans and grants which support health care education infrastructure and economic development resources for afghanistan and pakistan, the world bank which provides debt relief to developing countries is supporting an integrated agriculture initiative to address the global food crisis, the global environmental facility, the international fund for agricultural development, the -- this amendment would undermine the ability of the united states to meet its commitments to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world

that rely on our assistance. remember this is in the interest of our national security. these institutions fund valuable initiatives that provide opportunities to millions of people. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield to my good friend, the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. barney frank. mr. frank: i thank the gentlewoman. as i listen to the gentleman from texas, i recall these ferocious debates we have had led by a true fiscal conservative, the gentleman from arizona, as he assailed earmarks. i heard the gentleman from texas' voice in the earmarks debate. then i realized he was confused. he was defending his earmark. the gentleman's ferocity on behalf of fiscal conservatism does not extend to every earmark including his own. i understand that. but it did seem to me a little inconsistent with the uncompromising ferocity of his rhetoric. the gentleman does not come here

with quite the credentials, as, for instance, the gentleman from arizona. as to the money here being spent, i would say this, the gentleman said where will we cut? i'd like to cut the f-22 spending which we no longer need. i supported the president's proposal for cuts in agriculture spending. this notion it's always the liberals who want to spend and the conservatives who don't is fallacious. when it comes to unnecessary cold war weapons when, it comes to american troops being stationed overseas in countries where they should be be able to defend themselves. we could save a lot more money overseas by telling our wealthy allies it's time for them to defend themselves. that's a lot better in my mind than cutting a much smaller amount of money that goes to feed poor children. that goes to preventable deaths in the health care area. and which also save us because there has been the correct perception by a whole range of people, including secretary gates, including colin powell a. number of distinguished republicans who have served in national security positions that it is far better to spend money sensibly to avoid the kind of

social conditions that don't cause terrorism. the terrorists are sick people with no justification. but it makes support for them. it recruits for them. and we should be undercutting their recruiting by these kinds of things. the gentleman almost sneeringly said it's global environmental. let's be national. well, it may pain the gentleman, but it's kind of hard to confine the environment to the borders of the united states. the environment does not respect borders. so if you want to deal with the environment, it has to be done globally. many of us feel it would be a grave error for us to go ahead with tough climate issues here unless we also did them internationally. i was very proud along with spencer bachus and jim leach and maxine waters at the urging of the late pope john paul ii to do debt relief for the poorest countries in the world, to take money that would otherwise go to pay off debts and give it to the poor children and to health care.

and this would threaten that kind of program. so the half a billion dollars here, it pails -- pales in comparison not in general because it's a lot of money, but money spent on unnecessary cold war weapons, on money that goes tore agricultural subsidies to farmers who do not need it. on spending human beings to mars. i don't know how the gentleman plans to vote on that. i plan to vote if that comes up against -- i'll yield. mr. culberson: thank you very much. i did vote against $2.6 trillion spending under president bush. i voted against the farm bills. i voted against -- mr. frank: i take back my time explain to the gentleman. i wasn't questioning his credentials except for earmark. everyone is entitled to earmark. i'm sorrydy not yield again. i said the gentleman made cuts elsewhere. i wasn't say the gentleman didn't vote for cuts. i was refuting his notion that liberals don't vote for cuts. i voted for many cuts to bring down the overall budget. mr. chairman, does the gentleman need an instruction on the rules of the house?

he does not speak until i yield to him? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts controls the time. mr. frank: the point is the gentleman used up his five minutes unwisely. he should have reserved time. he don't it. that's the way it goes. the fact aleaveating poverty overseas going -- alleviating poverty overseas going to the aid of chern who will die of measles, diarrhea, and other illnesses it is a far better use of our money morally and also in terms of national security because i repeat against what secretary gates has said, colin powell has said, what sensible military leaders have said. a much smaller amount of money spent in these ways on sensible efforts to alleviate the misery conditions that lead to support for terrorism, not the terrorism themselves, is a very good way to preserve the national security much more cheaply in terms of human lives and in terms of money than a purely military solution. i thank the gentleman for the leadership. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired, the question is on the amendment offered byhe gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye, those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. mr. culberson: i request a record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. kirk: i have an amendment for ms. granger under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 4, printed in house report number 111-193, offered by mr. kirk of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 617, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer this amendment which refers to the following situation. last month through the 2009 supplemental bill, congress provided an expansion of resources and powers to the international monetary fund as requested by president obama.

this included $108 billion in new funding and approval for the i.m.f. to sell 13 million ounces of gold to fund their internal operating expenses. as part of that bill and consistent with its oversight role, congress gave the administration clear guidelines on how to pand -- how expanded i.m.f. should function. on june 24, president obama decided to disregard these congressionally mandated guidelines. upon signing the 2009 supplemental into law, the president issued a signing statement that said he would ignore sections 110, 1112, 1403, and 1404 of the supplemental. these provisions provide some of the only oversight that the united states exercises over the fund. an organization that will triple in size this year. the granger amendment which i

offer here would prohibit funds in this bill from being used by the secretary of the treasury to negotiate any agreement in contravention of these statutorily enacted provisions in the supplemental. one provision requires the u.s. to oppose i.m.f. loans to countries that are supporters of terrorism, contrice like iran. the congress consulted with the department of treasury while trasting this provision. additionally the provisions give the administration guidance from the congress as to how the united states should vote at the i.m.f. on health care, education, labor rights, and transparency issues. . they should not allow the disregard any mandates on these issues. they agreed to provide oversight for the i.m.f. and we

should stand by those provisions. giving $108 billion to the i.m.f. without a clear path to the future is not a policy we should support. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support this granger amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? mrs. lowey: though i plan to support the amendment, i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentlewoman who could not be here with us for her oversight. i recognize her concerns about the use of a signing statement to interpret congressionally imposed mandate this is a apply to the world bank and i.m.f. it is my understanding that this issue was included in the signing statement because of concerns regarding constitutional authority and not because of underlying policy differences with the congress.

i reserve the balance of my time -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. mrs. lowey: i'd like to yield a minute to the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. frank of massachusetts. mr. frank: -- mr. franks: i welcome this amendment. the chair of the subcommittee who does a great job said this was constitutional and not -- mr. frank: i've been told this is substantive. let me give my friends over there a constitutional lesson. they won't have anything to put a signing statement to if we don't pass it. i was asked by the administration and worked hard to get the money for the inch m.f. with some conditions.

the notion that the administration can take the money and pick and choose what it wants to do with the conditions is unacceptable. let me say,sas chairman -- as chairman of the that authorizes these and works closely with the appropriation, if the administration does not withdraw this claim they can ignore conditions we put on it, they'll have nothing to ignore because there won't be any conditions and won't be any money and that's right there in the constitution. i thank the gentlewoman. mrs. lowey:: and i would like to yield one minute to my chairman, mr. obey of wisconsin. mr. obey: let me say i agree with every word uttered by the gentleman and rise also in support of the amendment. the way the system works is that the administration asks the congress for money. many times, that is not a popular request. sometimes, the only way that the votes can be found to provide the money the administration wants is to

provide certain limitations on the use of that money. for any administration to say, well, we'll accept the money but ignore the limitations is to greatly increase the likelihood that they will not get the money. that is not in the interest of the administration, it certainly does not respect the rightful traditions and prerogatives of the congress, and so i very much am in agreement with the amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman from texas for offering the amendment and the gentleman from illinois for offering it in her stead. the chair: the gentleman from illinois? mrs. lowey: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. >> how much time do i have? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. kirk: i yield myself such time as i may consume. when we consider leadership in this body, we have several ways

to put forward the ideas of the congress. we can send a letter, we can use report language, that shows something that can be ignored but at the peril of the administration. when it's in a statute, that is under the law of the land, the supreme authority, abseptember being overridden by the constitution. i want to thank the clear bipartisan message that we are sending here by virtue of the chairwoman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and the chairman of the authorizing committee here. because i think this is a rare example of showing bipartisan concern on behalf of this institution against the executive branch. i would shudder to think that if ever we could see, somehow, the abuse of signing statements, which i am not that in favor of, and i don't think

have received any long-term sanction by the supreme court, to try to override a statute, basic law 101 would provide that. mr. frank: i appreciate the gentleman's role here. i would make one correction, i'm sure he agrees with me, it's a wording change. we do this not on behalf of this institution but on behalf of democracy, on behalf of the process by which people get elected and deliberate and do this. there's a unilateralism and an undemocratic, unreachable way the signing statements that is the opposite of what we do here. i thank the gentleman. mr. kirk: i thank the gentleman, he was critical of signing statements under the previous administration and is now critical of signing statements under this administration. but there's a much more important legal point, that a signing statement that attempts to override the a statute enacted by the congress of the united states should not require litigation before the supreme court.

that's why the statement of the full committee chairman mr. obey is so critical here. in the end, the way we enforce this is simply to deny funding. i learned that under chairman witten, when i think he remember he defunded the office of legislative affairs at the department of agriculture when he had a problem. so the signal we've sent to the treasury is very clear. ignore statute at your extreme peril and this is on behalf of a bipartisan, overwhelming majority. we will be asking for a recorded vote on this and send a very clear signal to the secretary of the treasury. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. kirk: on that, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 18 of -- clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise?

mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 3 in part bmbing. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three in part b offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake and a mobe opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: it says, neither the bill or this report contain congressional earmarks. i would have to disagree. it will provide $8 million for the one-time special professional and educational cultural grant program begun in fiscal year in 2008. these can go up to half a million dollars and they are to be awarded on a competitive basis. i have long been a support over cultural exchange programs, having americans go overseas and foreigners come here. i am also supportive of these

grants being awarded on a competitive basis. the problem here sthat report says the secretary is encouraged to consider the following proposals for this competitive program, unquote. then it lists several specific exchange programs. the recommendations of funding for these 12 specific programs look like earmarks to me and look like earmarks to a handful of members who requested them. so much so that they listed the earmark requests on their websites. a number of them did. so to them, it looked like an earmark. they're putting it in the report. this year, the appropriations committee is telling us that earmarks aren't really earmarks, they're just suggestions to the agencies who are under no obligation to fund them. my question would be, what is the difference here? and why, if in other bills there disclosure requirements, certification letters, put your

name next to the eefermark, other things we have to do, if those are mere suggestions to the agencies a look-see, we are told by the appropriations committee what is the difference here where he list several -- where we list several programs the secretary should consider? i retain the balance of my time and hope to be illuminated on this question. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise mrs. lowey: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lowey: the bill before the house is $33 million below the amount requested in the budget. the gentleman's amendment would reduce by $8 million funding for international exchange programs, bringing the amount in the bill to over $40 million below the qufment it also would prohibit funding for the one-time special grants program begun in fiscal year 2008.

grants you should this program are required to be competitively awarded and support exchanges for people who do not benefit through existing programs. none of the entities and organizations listed in the report are earmarks. all entities highlighted in the report under the special grants program must compete with all other applicants, whether listed in the report or not. for example, of the 39 entities listed in the explanatory statement a accompanying the state foreign operation and related programs appropriations act 2008, only 12, or less than 1/3, received funding. so i say to my friend respectfully, these are not earmarks. this program fills a void in our international exchange portfolio. it's a targeted one-time competitive opportunity for an

organization to address either a regional or population gap in international exchanges and should be continued. so i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: the gentlelady mentioned fy-08, mentiod there were some 36 listed. only 24 of those 36 were actually eligible for funding. half of those eligible for funding did receive the funding which took over half of the funding that was eligible to be disbursed. so there is quite an uncanny alignment between the -- what is put out there and what is actually then awarded. my question is, if -- with the rest of our appropriations this year, we are -- as we are told simply giving the agencies a list of recommendations, or a look-see, why is it that the

so-called hard earmarks in other bills require certification letter, require ansparency and other things, and the soft earmarks here, which act pretty much the same way, require no such disclosure or no such transparency? that's my concern here. it's long been the concern of many with these soft earmarks. the agencies have told us their hands are sometimes too much tied by the soft earmarks. they have programs and then members of congress will say, oh, yes, we're appropriating money, but it needs to be spent here, here, and here. we all know the agency knows who butters their bread, who appropriates their money, and they're inclined, particularly when it's a case of a powerful member, to go along with the recommendations made and so that's a question i have. it's more transparency here. why are these earmarks treated

differently than earmarks in other legislation? i reserve they balance of my time. mrs. lowey: i understand the gentleman's concern but i'd like to reiterate, there were 39 entities listed, 24 applied and of that 24, only 12 received the grants system of i think it's very different from an earmark where if you list an earmark, on many of the subcommittees, it is expected that those items listed will get the grants. so if there were 12 of the 24, it's clear to me that this is a competitive grant and so i certainly rest my case that this is not an earmark. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i ask about the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman has 1

1/2 minutes. mr. flake: i have to say, when we debated the homeland security bill, just a few days ago, we were told -- i challenged an earmark for a for-profit company, global solar, and i was told no, even though there's, in the report language, it says that the money is to go to global solar, and there was a certification letter filled out by the member saying the money is to go to global solar at this address, we were told there, well, no, it's going to be competitively bid. so don't worry about that language. it really doesn't mean anything. so i just don't know what to believe here. if we're told that, well, this is not like a hard earmark in other bills, that's what i'm being told now but then i was told on other bills, this isn't a rd earmark either. we did have disclosure requirements there and we don't have them here.

i think it behoofs us, until -- behooves us, until we can figure that out, are these hard earmarks, are they soft earmarks, certainly the members who requested them who actually listed them on their websites as appropriation requests, they see them as earmarks. so i would think that we need to be careful here. i reserve they balance of my time. . mrs. lowey: in the bill you referenced there were 100 applications. 51 received funding of the 100, and of the 24 that applied that were listed in the bill, 12 received funding. so that sounds like a competitive grant to me. it looks like a competitive grant. in my judgment it is a competitive grant. mr. flake: i would ask the gentlelady if that's the case y. list them? if they have to compete competitively, why do we list

them? why do we say to the agencies, well, have a competitive program but we want you to look at these programs. we want you to look at this exchange program, this sister city program, we are going to list it here in the report. if it's not an earmark, then don't list it. and simply have those organizations compete like everyone else does. mrs. lowey: i would like to say to the gentleman, members understand their districts. they have respect for some organizations and not for others. they have a right certainly to recommend, to include, to reference specific groups. that doesn't mean they are directing the agency to give them the earmarks. so again 100 applied, 51 received them, and of the 24 that were referenced as suggested by members, 12 of those received funding. so again, they had to compete,

but if the members may believe that a particular group has done laudable work in their district, i think they have every right as long as there is no guarantee it is not an earmark. the chair: those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be popse opponented. -- postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceed also now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-193, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. number one printed in part a by mrs. lowey of new york, number two printed in part b by mr. buyer of indiana, number six printed in part b by mr. stearns of florida, number 7 printed in part b by mr. weiner of new york, number 5 printed in part b by mr. clullberson of texas,

number 4 printed in part b by mr. kirk of illinois, number 3 printed in part b by mr. flake of arizona. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a of the house report 111-193, offered by the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 1, printed in house report number 111-193, offered by mrs. lowey of new york. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is offered. mi.mi. -- snie -- those in favor will vote aye. those posed will vote no. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: 261 vote the yea. 168 nay. the amendment passes. i would ask members to please take their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from arizona rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection. >> today i rise in remembrance

of james f. mcnulty, an arizonan, a patriot, a statesman, and a former member of this body. mr. mcnulty passed away in tucson on the 30th of june. during his lifelong service of 83 years, jim mcnulty was many things. he was a world war ii veteran, he was a proud university of arizona alum a. father of three, a successl attorney, a member of the catholic church, a peace corps volunteer, and a legislator. in 1982 jim was elected to the u.s. house of representatives, the fifth seat in the district of arizona newly created seat. though he only served for one single term, he was widely praised for his passion advocacy, for his community and constituents. on behalf of the entire arizona delegation, i would like to request that all members please stand and observe a moment of silence in memory of our dear friend and former colleague, jim mcnulty. the chair: please rise and

the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 2, printed in part b of house report 111-193. offered by the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer, on which furtheproceedings were postponed and the noes prevoiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: art b amendment number 2 offered by mr. buyer of indiana. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment 156 yeas. 271 nays. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 111-193 offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevoiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 6, printed in house report number 111-193, offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172, the nays are 259. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in part b of 1 is 111-193 offered by mr. weiner on which further proceedings were postponed which

the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redisnate the amendment. the clerk: printed in house report 111-193 offered by mr. weiner of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are the yeas are 297, the nays are 135. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 111-193 offered by mr. culberson on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk wills remain redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 print misdemeanor in house report 111-193 offered by mr. culberson of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: 147 nays, 256 nays. -- 174 yeas , 56 nays.

the amendment is not adopted. the request is for recorded vote on amendment number 4 offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 4, printed in house report number 111-193, offered by mr. kirk of illinois. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment 429 yeas. tuineis. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report number 111-19 , offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceeds -- proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 3, printed in house report number 111-193, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 164, 268 nays. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 198, line 4, the fact might be cited that the department of state, foreign operations and related programs appropriations act of 2010. the chair: under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, i move the whole house of the state of the union has had under

consideration -- the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration a bill, h.r. 3081, and pursuant to house resolution 617, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 617, the question on adoption of the amendments will be put en gros. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill making appropriations for the department of state, foreign operations and related programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the house will be iorder. members, please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. kirk: i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk: mr. kirk of illinois moves to recommit the bill back to the committee for appropriations with the following amendment, at the end of the bill, insert the following new section, section, regular order on appropriation bills, a, findings, one, on october 6, 2000, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. obey, made the following statement regarding the appropriations process, we have gotten so far from the regular order that i fear that if this continues the house will not have the capacity

to return to the precedence and procedures of the house that has given true meaning to the term, representative democracy. the reason that we have stuck to the regular order as lock as we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every member to participate and when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in the world. two, on that same day, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. obey, went on to say, i believe that this incredible -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kirk: i object. the speaker pro tempore: the objection is heard. the clerk will continue. the clerk: of decision making in the hands of the staff and house leadership offices means that for most members representing their districts in this body isdy minute,ing every day in termings of their ability to have a say in what goes on around here. on july 9, 2009 -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend.

the house will be in order. the clerk may continue. the clerk: three, on july 9, 2009, the house adopted a rule governing consideration of this bill making appropriations for the department of state, foreign operations and related programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, that deviated from the regular order by making it in order no more than eight amendments and by specifically preventing 39 members from offering amendments that they had publicly indicated a desire to have debated. four, the following members were specifically denied the right to participate in the deliberations on this bill by having one or more of their amendments it denied the right to be debated. the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. bean, the gentleman from california, mrs. bilbray, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, the gentleman from missouri, mr. blunt, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown-waite, the

gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the gentleman from delaware, mr. castle, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. for thenenberry, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, the gentleman from nevada, mr. heller, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, the gentlewoman from south dakota, ms. herseth sandlin, the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. hodes, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the gentleman from missouri -- mrs. lowey: mr. speaker. the clerk: the gentleman from florida, mr. mack, the gentleman from georgia, mr. marshall. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i wish to insist on a point of order under clause 2 of rule 21 and believe that the chair has heard enough of the reading to dispose of such a question.

mr. kirk: mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i object. the speaker pro tempore: an amendment being offered and the reading having begun, a point of order may interrupt the reading and the chair may rule the amendment out if enough has been read. mr. kirk: mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain argument over the point of order. mr. kirk: on this point of order -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to speak on the point of order? mr. kirk: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from illinois is recognized under point of order. mr. kirk: mr. speaker, the question he i would ask is, how would the chair know that a point of order lies if we haven't even read the underlying motion to recommit? i would worry that we would enter into a parliamentary procedure something like the election counting in iran where we quickly find out --

the speaker pro tempore: an amendment being offered and the reading having begun, a point of order may interrupt the reading and the chair may rule the amendment out if enough has been read to show that it is out of order. mr. kirk: mr. speaker, on that i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has yet to rule on the point of order. mrs. lowey: i move to lay the -- mr. kirk: i -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to be heard on the underlying point of order? mr. kirk: i continue to wish to be heard. on that i would think that due consideration would be to have the house hear the motion to recommit and then once you have understood its full import, we would then be able to hear from the chair and have the body decide if it wanted to appeal the ruling or not. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. mrs. lowey: indiana sift on my point of order -- i insist on my point of order.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. kirk: can i hear again, what is the point of order against reading the actual resolution that we have before us? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman stated clause 2 of rule 21 as the basis. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to be heard on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: mr. speaker, the logic of this point of order being in order now is that in the alternative those members who suffer from senate envy could write a 700-page nongermane amendment -- the speaker pro tempore: the house -- the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to rule. mr. frank: mr. speaker. mr. speaker, may i -- mr. speaker, order, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. frank: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. >> mr. speaker. mr. frank: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will not proceed until there is order. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i believe i have the floor. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard? mr. frank: mr. speaker. i would like to continue my remarks which are that we have a -- mr. speaker, let me amend what i said. let me amend what i said and refer to those thin-skinned members with senate envy. the speaker pro tempore: the house will not proceed until there is order. mr. frank: mr. speaker, the point is that the point of order

is necessary to allow filibuster by reading a nongermane amendment that could last for hours. that is why i speak in support of the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on this? the chair is prepared to rule. for the reasons stated by the gentlewoman from new york and as held in similar circumstances earlier today, the proposed amendment violates clause 2 of rule 21, the point of order is sustained, the motion is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. kirk: on that i would appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is -- for what purpose does -- the question he is, shall the decision of the chair stand as judgment of the house? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i move to table the appeal of the ruling. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. kirk: mr. speaker, on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: the the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 180. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 8 -- the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. kirk: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. kirk: i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the moths. the clerk: mr. kirk of illinois moves to recommit the bill back

to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back forthwith with the following amendment, page 11, line 7, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $15 million. mr. kirk: i ask that the motion be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. lowey: i object. the speaker pro tempore: hearing objection, the clerk will read. the clerk: page 18, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $15 million. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. kirk: thank you. mr. speaker, in my judgment we should support organizations that advance democracy and reduce the increase in funding for organizations which are ambivalent. under this bill the national endowment for democracy was cut $15 million. conversely the organization of american states and other

international institutions got a $92 million increase. yet the o.a.s. invited fidel castro back into the organization -- by the way, fidel then said no, and the o.a.s. also leads support for the honduran leader even after his supreme court ruled that he could not extend his term. now, many countries are forced into a dilemma by a would-be dictator who calls a vote that then ends all votes. cuba has no votes. venezuela has few remaining. and now honduras was saved by its supreme court. therefore in my judgment we should reduce the increase for the o.a.s. which doesn't know if it supports democracy and give that money to the national endowment for democracy which does. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to our ranking minority member of the foreign affairs committee, ileana ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: if the gentlewoman will suspend. .

the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much. i thank the gentleman from illinois for his time. as he explained, our motion to recommit would reduce the united states contributions to the organization of american states by $15 million and instead direct that funding to n.e.d., the national endowment for democracy, for democracy promotion programs. recent events call into question the commitment of the o.a.s. to its historic values of democracy in human rights. the o.a.s. in cuba, in spite of hundreds of political prisoners languishing in jail, having commit nod crime but speaking on behalf of freedom, in spite of there being no elections in spite of there being only one political party allowed to operate in cuba, the communist party, in spite of no labor unions allowed to operate, no human rights expected, what did the o.a.s. do? it passed the resolution lifting the 1962 suspension of cuba from

the o.a.s. regarding the events in honduras -- the speaker pro tempore: if the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentlewoman from florida deserves to be heard. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. regarding the events in honduras, the o.a.s. ignored president zelaya's ongoing constitutional violations and remained silent when the honduran supreme court acted, when the attorney general decided, when the human rights decided when the national congress voted, all declaring his referendum illegal. the united states is footing 60% of the entire budget bill for the o.a.s. while that organization pursues an agenda of appeasement toward repressive governments in the hemisphere. the hard-earned dollars of your constituents go to fund this sham. there are clearly much better uses of u.s. taxpayer funds in order to advance an agenda of freedom and democracy.

the national endowment for democracy has a long record of fighting for fundamental freedoms, for democracies around the world. the $50 million will be better spent by n.e.d. to support dissidents and those struggling to advance freedom in the countries of the americas. a few examples of the o.a.s. actions, i wish i had more time, but in february following the attack of a prominent synagogue in venezuela which highlighted the growing anti-is he metic campaign facilitated and tolerated by the chavez regime, the then u.s. ambassador of the o.a.s. called for a condemn nation. what did the o.a.s. do? na drving a. they he did nothing. and the secretary general expressed confidence in the system of chavez and their investigation of the incident. what about nicaragua? in november of 2008 during their municipal elections, the o.a.s. again did nada, nothing, about reports that thousand of

supporters wielding home made rocket launchers continued to arrive from all over the country gathering outside the supreme electoral council's building to demand a final verdict on the elections. the o.a.s. also did nada, nothing, about the destruction of three he opposition radio stations in the city of leone during these municipal elections. u.s. taxpayer funds are better spent supporting the work of the bipartisan national endowment for democracy to help strengthen democratic institutions around the world. let's help n.e.d. do something. let's stop the o.a.s. from doing -- thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois has 20 seconds remaining. mr. kirk: i would recommend that this house adopt the motion to recommit so that we can say that we don't want to cut the

national endowment democracy and we want to support that organization rather than the organization of american state which has done -- >> nada. mr. kirk: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: o.a.s. is the preeminent multilateral organization in our hemisphere. it helps resolve or minimize many threats, including terrorism, narcotics and political conflicts. it also plays an important role in promoting sustainable development in central america, supports the election process in places like ecuador, paraguay, haiti and el salvador. while we may not agree with every issue and every member in the o.a.s., it is the key

conduit for discussions among all of our hemispheric partners. we have made an international commitment as a member of o.a.s. to pay our dues. cutting our eye assessment payment will create arears and undermine the secretary located here. the o.a.s. is an international organization and the united states has a legal commitment to provide our contribution. the o.a.s. is the only regional organization in the western hemisphere that has all of the democratically elected members of the region and all of them strived to enhance and secure democratic principles and values as embodied in the interamerican democratic charter which was accepted by all of the members. o.a.s. is the prime defender of human rights in the region. o.a.s. plays a major role in helping the people of haiti as they struggle to establish a sustainable democratic regime, with assistance selections in

civil society programs and rule of law. the o.a.s. is one of the world's most recognized election observation efforts, sending missions all over latin america and the caribbean. it would be a disastrous sign of our commitment as the main contributor to the o.a.s. for us to unilaterally cut off funding and i yield to the gentleman from california, the chair of the foreign relations committee, mr. berman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want everybody to understand, the party proposing this motion to recommit, it's the same party that held the white house for eight years where our policies and relationships towards the entire latin american region so degraded our reputation and our effectiveness that they should be embarrassed to making suggestions. secondly -- secondly --

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. berman: i am a great fan -- i will not yield -- i am a great fan of the national endowment of democracy. i tell you, they don't want this amendment to pass. thirdly, the real agenda here, this is an organization that has refused to bring back a member that does not meet the democratic criteria of that organization in great part because of the excellent work of our administration here at the most recent o.a.s. meeting and, fourthly, the real agenda here is because some people here don't care that people they like better in a country called honduras, and i understand why they like him better and in some ways they may be better, are willing to result to a military coup and a totally anti-democratic approach to changing leadership but don't want to bring that into the debate because they're embarrassed to be associated with a military coup in honduras.

that's the goal of these people. i urge a no vote on this amendment. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i yield two the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, chairman of the subcommittee on western hemisphere. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i thank my friend -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i thank my friend, the gentlewoman from new york, for yielding to me. as the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee for the past two years, i can tell you, wherever i go in south america, central america, the caribbean, people say that the united states has been neglectful over the past eight years, that we haven't looked towards our own brothers and sisters in the western hemisphere and i think that what we ought to be doing now is supporting organizations like the o.a.s., even if we don't agree with everything they do. now is not the time to turn away or to cut funding for the o.a.s. we need to be engaged, we need to work with our brother and

sister countries in the hemisphere so that we can show that we are with them and cutting aid, you can heckle all you like, but all cutting aid does is make it more difficult for our country to carry out our own foreign policy objectives. so i think there should be more money for the national endowment for democracy, this is not the way to do it, cutting aid to the o.a.s. would be a grave mistake and i oppose the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 25 seconds remaining. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back the balance of her time. without objection, the preefpk question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. kirk: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a record vote will rise. a sufficient number having

arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be -- pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20rks the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 192. the nays are 200.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 192. the nays are 233. 9 motion is not adoptsed. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 314, the nays the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 318, the nays

are 106. objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 622, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3082, making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? mr. jackson: revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to mourn and to salute august seeman, august provos, a seaman, at camp pendleton in california. to recognize the tragic way in which he lost his life in the line of duty. august provos is a young man, a constituent, of the 18th congressional district, coming from the famous acres home community. it was only a few days ago that his mother received the terrible

news that he was shot dead on the base of camp pendleton. shot in the chest -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is is not in order. ms. jackson lee: shot in the chest, shot in the back of the head and his body burned. we can't seem to find any information, mr. speaker, allegations that this is a hate crime, but why i rise today is that he'll be funeralized tomorrow as a hero. but we as an american people must stand against hateful acts on the basis of someone's difference and to the united states military which i hold the greatest respect, there must be a thorough, in depth, full and broad investigation, not a coverup, as to find out why this valiant young african-american died on base in his uniform by being shot by a alleged fellow uniform personnel.

thuniform of the united states military must be what it is, outstanding, respected, and we cannot expect that violence against fellow military personnel because of difference should ever persist in this united states of america. i mourned with the family, i pay tribute to him as he is laid to rest as an american hero. he will be forever an american hero in our hearts and in this nation. august, we thank you for your service. god bless you and god bless feament. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. heller of nevada for today after 5:00 p.m. and the balance of the week and mr. murphy of new york for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are

granted. furt the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, july 16, five minutes, mr. jones, july 16, five minutes, mr. price, today, five minutes, ms. foxx, today, five minutes. mr. inglis today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to thank today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extends their remarks and include

therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california, mr. delahunt of massachusetts, mr. sarbanes of maryland, ms. kaptur of ohio, mr. quigley of illinois and mrs. maloney of new york. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and and you previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe from texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. the people of iran are embrawled in a noble struggle against tyranny. the government of iran is engaging in the massacre of its own people. and what is their crime? they dare to speak out against fraud and corruption in their own government. they question the results of an election steeped in fraud. their peaceful dissent has resulted in violent and brutal attacks from the hard line government, a government that has declared war on its own people.

a government that has shed the blood of the innocent. the people of iran have boldly and bravely exercised the first basic human right, the right of free speech. the crackdown is startling news to the students who believed their government, despite its flaws, had the best interest of its people at heart. that veil has forever been lifted from their eyes. in america we faced a similar awakening to the brutality of the government of england when it ruled us. the city of boston was occupied by british troops to enforce harsh taxes and punishments intended to exert control over the american colonies by force and intimidation. citizens took to the streets to vocallie decry the tyranny. tens words were exchanged and british soldiers opened fire on a group of unarmed pate yachts. five people were killed and eight others were injured. we call it the boston massacre. the boston massacre has ended but the iranian massacre has begun. and the silent voices of the slain still cry from the graves

of the martyred oppressed. these students have embraced the ideals of liberty and freedom. they value human life and dignity. now they're faced with the realization that the republic they were taught to believe in is not what it claims to be. they suffer the consequences of demanding human rights from a violent and tyrannical government. the streets of iran are early silent now but the opposition does continue. a quiet and righteous anger builds in these oppressed and brutalized young people. one young student said, quote, my friend, a 26-year-old fellow student, was on the streets last week. she's now home with a broken arm and a broken leg. i saw hell right before my eyes last week, she said. you can never imagine how the sight of a huge man beating you to death looks to me. mr. speaker, these young people of iran, these sons of liberty, these daughters of democracy, have joined the few, the noble few who throughout history have stood and faced vicious tyrants.

one noted historian once said, you see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers, yeltsin in their hearts there is unspoken, unspeakable fear. they are afraid of words and thoughts, words spoken, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden to be spoken. these young students are not alone, mr. speaker. we are kin dread spirits. america has earned its freedom through struggle and shed its blood in many countries around the world in defense of freedom and liberty. you see, mr. speaker, each of us throughout the agencies -- ages of time are born with the unbroken spirit in our soul to be free. to desire liberty and freedom. tyrants have always tried to enslave people by brutal dark nightmares for the sake of their personal, political power and financial gain. indeed the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. the closing words written by this young iran an student could

have come right from the pages of america's own history books and the fight for our liberty. he said, one thing we know for certain, this isn't a fight that will end tomorrow or next month. it is not a fight that any group or party can fight alone. the path is uncertain, the road ahead is quite bleak. but my generation, born on the side lines only to watch and obey, has now been given the opportunity to write its own history, to tell its own story and to the best of our ability we will do that. americans should stand with these young people of iran who have suffered much in the struggle for human rights and human dignity. their courage is in the face of overwhelming odds is an example to all who honor freedom. they have earned their own place of honor in the pages of history among those who have so valiantly fought and died for the cause of human dignity. sam adams was one of america's sons of liberty and he said, it does not require a majority to does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,