mcclatchey newspaper came up with similar results. it is time to develop a new strategy and new mission for america in afghanistan. we must begin to use all the tools of smart power. smart power means improving police and intelligence work in the communities where extremists hide. well trained afghan policemen who are familiar with local people with customs and conditions can often do the best job of hunting down extremists. . these are the things that will give the afghan people real hope for their future and eliminate the root causes of violent extremism. as national security advisor james l. jones has said, and i quote him, this war will not be

be won by the military alone. we tried that for years. the peace of our strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. if that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed, end quote. i know that president obama and secretary of state clinton agree that improving the lives of the afghan people is the key to victory. they have pledged to do everything they can to help rebuild afghanistan and show the afghan people that we offer them a better future than the taliban. madam speaker, i and other members of the house who oppose our occupation of iraq watched for years as congress did nothing to prevent that disaster. but we still have time to get it right when it comes to afghanistan. this time let's use smart power. it will save lives, save money, and make our country safer.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe from texas. mr. poe: request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: madam speaker, congress will gladly welcome the president tomorrow night to speak to a joint session of congress about health care. all of us here have been asked hundreds of questions by our constituents over the past month. the president is an innovator in communications. he tries new ideas and is a trend setter when it comes to new ways to be in touch with the american people. so as the president addresses congress on his health care ideas tomorrow night, why doesn't he take some health care questions from members of congress? questions that have been asked by the people we represent. after all, we call this the people's house, so why not address questions the american people have? the questions could be submitted before the president speaks and he can choose the ones he wants to address. this could be a congressional town hall hosted by the president. here are just some of the questions i have been asked by

the people of texas. one, the health care bill seems to cost too much. how are we going to pay for it? this question brought much concern to the people in my district. the congressional budget office says that the pending house bill will cost anywhere to billions to even $1 trillion to just implement. tax increases are in the current plan to pay for this bill, more spending of what we don't have. i made a pledge to my constituents not to vote for a bill that will raise taxes and i haven't. why do we -- how do we pay for this without a force-fed tax increase on the american people? two, why is this bill so confusing? it's written in a way that even the most reasonable people from even the same political party can honestly disagree on its meaning. the 1,017-page bill if it passes will then allow the bureaucrats to determine the meaning of the bill. also, texans don't want un-elected bureaucrats in this city making their medical decisions on what services they get and don't get. can we get a clearly written

bill that everyone can understand? three, why shouldn't congress, the czars, and members of the cabinet be required to sign up for the public option? if it's going to be so good for the american people, shouldn't everyone supporting this plan be required to be under the public option like government officials? four, people on medicare are scared and agrade they are not going to receive any medical treatment. what is the man to make sure there is no rationing of medical care for the elderly? five, why not eliminate the hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud and waste in our current medicare system before we tackle anything else? six, all of the amendments offered in committee that would specifically require proof of citizenship to sign up for this new government-run health care were defeated. americans and legal residents shouldn't be required to pay for the health care of illegals. the bill is confusing on this issue since it doesn't require proof of citizenship. seven, small business owners are afraid they will have to lay off people or shut their

doors altogether if they are hit with more new taxes. what's the plan to protect small business from bearing the brunt of new taxes for this health care idea? madam speaker, these are seven of the questions i have been asked by the people i represent, and i would hope the president could address some of them and questions by other members of congress. madam speaker, does anyone really believe that big government could do a better job of running health care? it's a glittering allusion to think our health care problems can be solved by more expensive big bureaucratic government. we do need reform, but a government takeover will only add to the problems we have now. we need to fix what's broken not break whatever -- what already works. so, madam speaker, since our president's an innovator of new communication ideas, i respectfully submit a town hall meeting between the president and congress might just be the way to cut to the chase in this health care debate and allow the president time to answer the questions of the american people. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: miss

capture from ohio. ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: madam speaker, our economy is the issue. today the world economic forum released its annual global competitiveness report. switzerland has now replaced the united states as the most competitive economy in the world. the united states fell out of first place due to its weakened financial markets and macroeconomic instability. this, madam speaker, is another wake-up call for our country if anyone is listening. due to the global economic crisis precipitated by irresponsible u.s. financial institutions, nations throughout the world continue to struggle managing their financial futures. let's take note of an important fact. switzerland maintains a positive trade balance. not a trade deficit. in 2008, switzerland enjoyed a

$17 billion trade surplus, a third straight record year. and yet the nation is also now ranked as the most competitive in the world. we have almost $1 trillion trade deficit. now, think about this. free-throw fundamentalists here in the united states would say that it's not possible. that you can't be competitive while running an enormous trade surplus. some of them even try to tell us that trade deficits are good. well, here in the united states the free-throw fundamentalists would have us believe we have to rollover for the chinese or anybody else who want to dominate our domestic market in order to be competitive, they say. but facts are facts. switzerland is both the nation's most economically competitive nation, according to the world economic forum, while enjoying an enormous trade surplus. madam speaker, we have a lot of work to do here in our country, and in this congress to help

our nation regain its world leading position in the competitiveness ranking. we now rank, shockingly, 108th this is world in the soundness of our banks. switzerland fell in that category two, down to 44th, but not as far as the united states. in regulation of securities exchanges, the united states ranked a dismal 47th in the world compared to switzerland's third place ranking. in property rights, switzerland was first. and the united states, 30th. in infrastructure, that's roads, bridges, so forth, switzerland was first. the united states, 14th. in math and science education switzerland was fifth. and the united states 48th. in infant mortality, the united states ranked 36. doesn't that speak to a decent health insurance program in this country? and life expectancy? we were 30th. the quality of primary education, 30th?

madam speaker, we have a lot of work to do, our nation is losing ground internationally. second place overall isn't bad, but we have to make the necessary investments in our physical and social infrastructure or we'll fall even further. one of the authors of the world economic report, dr. martin, a professor of economics at columbia, put it this way, amid the present crisis it is critical that policymakers not lose sight of long-term competitiveness fundamentals amid short-term urgencies. economies are those factors driving productivity enhancements on which their present and future prosperity is built a competitiveness supporting economic environment can help national economies to weather business cycle downturns and ensure the mechanisms abling solid economic performance going in the future are in place. we have a lot of work to do as a congress. we need strong financial sector to restore strength to our banks not cosmetic changes.

we need investments in infrastructure and education and we need health insurance reform. our economic competitiveness as a nation and our ability to create jobs hang in the balance. madam speaker, it's time for congress to take the reins and stop the stampede of greed to provide leadership that will help our nation and help our people through these tough times. we want the united states to be a world leader again in job creation, innovation, and economic competitiveness. we can do it, but not unless the financial industry is a part of the team. pulling in the same direction, making our country stronger, not putting us further at risk and not taking huge bonuses while 15 million americans remain unemployed. madam speaker, the economy is the issue, the american people know that. the president and congress have our work cut out for us. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. ros-lehtinen. without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so

much, madam speaker. i rise today to express my deep concern regarding the most recent strong arm tactics of the u.s. government to coerce the people of honduras into accepting the return of former president man well salia into power. have some u.s. officials forgotten what democracy really is? democracy does not belong to nor is defined by one man nor one government. it cannot survive without respect for the rule of law. yet this has been forgotten. the u.s. and the international community failed the honduran people and honduran democracy as he violated the constitution and took unilateral actions to extend hizz hold on power. our government said and did nothing as democracy came under attack in the months leading up to his removal for -- from

office. yet when the honduran supreme court, the attorney general, the national congress, the human rights ombudsman took the necessary steps in accordance with the constitutional tenets, then the u.s. and the international community quickly sprung into action to defend him and punish honduran democratic institutions and virtually all of honduran civil society. with no apparent regard for u.s. security or political or economic interest, the united states is doing all we can to ensure that salia is put back in charge. the u.s. has terminated millions of dollars in u.s. assistance to the people of honduras. we have stopped critical counternarcotics cooperation, we suspended necessary visa certificate vases. last week the state department declared that the presidential elections to be held in late november in honduras will not be recognized unless he's

returned to power. as the u.s. has been employing its harshest tactics against the honduran government and the honduran people, the u.s. has also at the same time eased restrictions on the cuban dictatorship, pushed for engagement and dialogue with the cuban, syrian, and iranian regime, while failing to hold chavez and core raya accountable for the plateant -- blatant violations of the fundamental rights of their citizens. the u.s. has crossed a dangerous throshe hold by announcing as i stated that we will not acknowledge the upcoming honduran elections unless the current democratic government of honduras accepts his return to power this. threat not only deliberately ignores the rule of law and checks and balances carefully crafted in the honduran constitution to prevent the rise of tyranny, but it also seeks to replace them with mandates from outside actors

who are carrying water for chavez, for castro, for salia and the like. the u.s. position undermines the fundamental right of the honduran people to elect their own leaders in multiparty, transparent, democratic elections free from coercion. how our present course of action serves our interest or supports honduran democracy remains an important yet unanswered question. elliott abrams currently at the council of foreign relations and a former official with the reagan administration recently wrote, it was salia who wanted to mess around with that election and hold a referendum on that date allowing him to be re-elected in perpetuity just as his mentor, chavez, had done in venezuela. and now hondurans want to go back to regular elections, what does the u.s. do? the united states won't allow them to do so. the presidential candidates in honduras, madam speaker, have

not changed since salia was removed from office. the dates of the election have not changed. the presidential term has not been moved or modified. the supreme electoral tribunal is taking steps to ensure this is the most transparent election in honduran history. the u.s. should be assisting rather than undermining the preparations for the upcoming elections to ensure that there is no interference with the democratic electoral process in honduras. mary grady of the "wall street journal" wrote, a lot of hondurans believe the u.s. isn't using its brass knuckles to serve their democratic aspirations at all, but quite the opposite. the aspirations of a neighborhood thug. . though some in our country believe that being popular among latin america's left wing dictators is the key to a successful u.s. policy in our

hemisphere, freedom must be and must remain our driving force. freedom, madam speaker. if it is not, the u.s. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. mccotter of michigan. mr. mccotter: i'd like to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccotter: madam speaker, i quote, for lo the winter is passed, the rain is over and gone. the flowers appear on the earth. the time of the singing of birds is come and the voice of the trurtle is heard in our land. every april we michiganders recite these lines from the song of solomon from his broadcast booth.

and we welcome him and another season to detroit tigers baseball back into our homes. ernie is not only a part of our cull ter, he is a part of our families -- culture, he's a part of our families. throughout radios and sand lots, ernie's voice embodied and expressed the greatest of american games. baseball. everyone either tried or knew someone who tried to mimic his legendary calls of long gone. he stood there like a house by the side of the road. or that foul ball was caught by a youngster from. and on pins and needles we'd wait to hear from what city the lucky fan hailed. of course down inside we knew no one knew. including ernie or the fan was from, but it didn't matter. we knew where ernie's heart was, it was and is with baseball and with us.

but a heart as big as ernie's is not only in baseball and detroit. across the country fans grew up listening to earny. he announced games for both ncaa and pro football teams. for masters golf tournament in georgia, for the major league baseball all-star game and world series, for the brooklyn dodgers, new york giants, baltimore orioles and, yes, for the detroit tigers, who in gratitude and admiration placed a new statue in the main con course of the park. yes, ernie is also a part of the detroit tigers family as tiger hall-of-famer affirmed, quote, ernie is probably the most block ofed person who has ever been in detroit with the detroit tigers. he is loved by everybody and rightfully so. he's a great broadcaster but an even better person. end quote. yet while we and the tigers and sports friends across the nation

embrace him, no one, of course, loves ernie more than his wife of 68 years, lulu, and their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. so blessed with their love and support and faithful and thankful to god for bestowing this bounty upon him, ernie now faces the recent diagnosis that he is afflicted with incureble bioduct cancer. viewing his condition not as an end but as a beginning, ernie says the quote, whatever's in store, i'm ready for a new adventure. that's the way i look at it. end quote. madam speaker, may we all honor this man, safer his company amongst us in the time god grants and greet all of our lives' challenges with the faith and dignity of ernie hallwell. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. neugebauer from texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i'd like to claim the time for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. souder: with the embarrassing demise of mr. jones, the czars debate has escalated even beyond where it was when we left in the july break. depending on how you count, there's some 30 czars. it's been said in many different places, actually, that there are more czars in this administration than the roman oves who ruled russia for three centuries had czars. there's energy czar and a faith-based czar, a tarp czar, a stimulus accountability czar, a nonproliferation czar, a terrorism czar, regulatory czar, guantanamo closure czar, a climate czar, a cyber space czar, many more.

they even had for a while a de facto car czar who wasn't a czar but ultimately he became the car czar even though initially they said there wasn't going to be a car czar. now, the challenge here is that this appears to be an extra constitutional approach. now, the constitution says government officers with significant authority, the principle officers of the government, are to be appointed by the president subject to approval by the senate. now, this has been interrupted with the -- interpreted with the expansion of government even to go five layers down that they're expected to have delineated duties, deputy secretaries, directors of different offices, come up to congressional committees, come up to the hill, if not actually to get approved by the senate but at least to be accountable for what they do. we have it in the government reform and oversight committee. we call in many of these different people who have all sorts of delineated duties. now a clear way to avoid the checks and balances of this

system is to put them under the white house rather than having a delineated position. this gives them a potentially -- potentially, a consulting position as though they were a policy person at the white house even though they're moving through the bureaucracy. the motive behind this obviously is that many things are not just in one department. for example, almostny of these different categories, obviously faith-based czar, -- czar, there are departments in each part of the administration, tarp things, terrorism crosses about many of the departments. so the question is, when you have a traditional line structure, what do you do when you have things kind of stovepipe and how do you interrelate with this? well, it's one thing to have advisors in the white house. quite frankly, the bush administration was pushing the edges of this and their faith-based office went from an office inside the white house to then appointing a faith-based office in each department that

then the faith-based policy person had some influence over although it wasn't as direct. by calling somebody a czar, presumably it means they have the power of the president to go behind and use their staff authority as though they were lying. which is exactly what the founding fathers were debating about. there's a great new book, plane, honest -- plain, honest men by a university at the university of pennsylvania -- by a profess art the university of pennsylvania. it's things during the constitutional debate. one thing through that book, you constantly see is they couldn't agree on what powers the president was supposed to have. they went back and forth, alexander hamilton got so mad because he wanted it to be a permanent position that once, basically for life, like a supreme court justice, and he stormed out of the convention for nearly 30 days, only came back to sign it. so clearly there was a debate and hamilton lost for accountability and checks and balances of the system.

and the czar approach is avoiding those checks and balances. now, my friend and colleague, congressman kingston, has introduced a bill, the czar accountability and reform act, the czar act, that has three simple points to. it the person has to have advice and consent of the senate. he is to not be exempted from the competitive service by reason of confidential policy determining character which is kind of the debates week of had and the task forces around health care with the former president clinton, it came up in multiple debates in the last white house where they say that congress can't get email oversight, we can't call certain people up because it's policymaking decision advice to the president this bill say it doesn't apply to a czar and also if they perform or delegate functions which but for the establishment of such office would be performed or delegated by an individual in a position to which the president appoints an individual by and with advice

and consent of the senate. which basically means a czar can't take authorities from people who would have been approved by the senate. now we actually have a model for this. it's the office of national drug control policy. the so-called drug czar was the first czar but we have legislation that guides his budget, that even gives the duties and delineation of his duties and the deputy director's duties and other people underneath it. it says, which things he has line authority for, as chairman of the committee that did the last five year reauthorization of this, we had all sorts of how high intensity drug trafficking agencies areas are supposed to be used, the counterdrug technology assessment center, we had appropriations for his staff and how much he would have for his staff and how much for his appropriations. we had specifics on how it was going to relate to the department of interior, the department of agriculture, the attorney general, the homeland security defense. we had guidelines of what

reports come to congress and of the different relevant committees because while government reform had primary jurisdiction over the drug czar, it also went to judiciary, to energy and commerce, and other committees so there were different reporting strategies because in fact czar was a slang term up until this administration. now the great, for example, in high intensity drug trafficking it says dess pace in, the director, upon consultation with the attorney general, secretary treasury, heads of the national drug control program agencies and the governor of each applicable state may designate any specified area of the united states as high intensity drug trafficking area. that's explicit. that's not somebody wandering around with undefined authority. he's got a specific buth and so on. here's the great irony. we had one czar who was in the cabinet, approved with the advice and consent of the senate with a specific budget. and our current director of office and national drug control policy, a good man and would have been clearly cleared, but

this administration chose to take the one czar that was approved with the advice and consent of the senate and take him out of the cabinet and now he's not certified either. so now even the one czar who has descriptions, who was following the pattern under this administration, has been changed. and the danger here is we do not know how the interrelationships between the people cleared by the united states senate are working with noncleared people. we run into background check problems like mr. jones, but we run into other huge questions and that is, so much power centered in one place that's not accountable to congress, that it's not even clear how we do oversight of that function. look, i criticized the last administration when they did too much of this and we had some back and forth about why they wouldn't appear in front of the different committees, even on policy advicers, we need to have direct -- advisors. we need to have direct aggressive oversight in this house,? the nat, to -- senate, to find out how this is working, to find

out who's commanding what and the people now running the agencies' hands tied, the people who we delineated their duty, who were cleared with advice and consent of the senate, are their hands now tied by a bunch of people who haven't gone through this process, who sleant been vetted who do not have clear line authority, but are using the staff power coming out of the president of the united states to usurp the constitutional power of those who are designated principle officers and commanded by the constitution to report to the house and senate? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. inglis from south carolina. mr. moran from kansas. mr. bartlett from maryland. without objection. mr. bartlett: madam speaker, i believe that we can all agree the health care reform proposals

ignited debates an homes and workplaces all over the country. the intense interest in health care policy by so many americans made this district work period unusually exciting. my offices were busy taking phone calls, emails and having people drop by voicing their concerns. this healthy health care debate has led many americans to become involved in politics for the first time. whenever we in congress do something really important, we need to get outside the beltway because that's where the great wisdom in our country lies. all of us in the congress share three goals for health care reform legislation. we want to make health care insurance more affordable and accessible. we want to improve the quality of health care, we want to reduce the cost of health care. where we disagree is how to accomplish these goals. i would like to share some of what i did and learned concerning health care over the recess period. as a scientist and engineer, i seek out the facts to guide my decisions.

i also earn my masters and doctorate degrees in human physiology, the basic medical science. this led me to a 20-year career in teaching anatomy and physical yoling to both medical and nursing students. that's why one of the things i did and my staff did was to read the house leadership bill, h.r. 3200 and the amendments by three house committees. i'm very proud that so many of my constituents were also interested in learning what proposed health care reform bills would do and exactly what they say. that's why i posted on my website the house majority bill, 3200, with information about the improved amendments. i also posted on my website an alternative bill that i support, h.r. 3400, the empowering patients first act, developed out of suggestions by my colleagues in the republican study committee. . besides reading legislation, i also engaged in a lot of listening and dialogue. i visited with local doctors in

my district to get their perspective about health care. as a religious of one of my constituents, a cardiologist who practices at frederick memorial hospital, i toured the cardiac labs at washington add vensist hospital on august 27. i was invited to tour the lab by dr. turco, an interventionist cardiologist. he's also the leader of the three memphisian group for washington add van hollenist hospital which volunteered to supervise and assist a joint training venture for physicians in frederick memorial hospital so they could also perform innovative procedures in cath labs compared to traditional repairs. while i was there in scrubs and mask, i observed a procedure called an endograph, used to repair an aneurysm. the image guided repair a. stint graph a. woven polyester

two, was compressed inside a carer in catheter, while viewed on an x-ray monitor, it was inserted through a small invision in the patient's groin and threaded through the catheter through arteries. the stint graph was placed across the aneurysm and released. as it expanded it gripped the wall and both sides of the aneurysm bypassing the bulge from the inside. i observed this procedure i marveled at boast the advances in our medical research and technology, as well as the dedication to care for human lives represented by this joint venture. this procedure cuts down the recovery time for patients as well as the time required for patients to be in the hospital. one of my greatest concerns about health care reform is that we don't curtail the innovation health care that are invented predominantly here in the united states. there's also a lot of concern about competition in health care. competition is important. competition always does two

things, it drives down costs and increases quality. however there is also a lot of cooperation in medical care today. here i observed physicians at one hospital helping physicians at another local hospital to increase the availability, the competition for innovation -- innovative medical treatments that benefit patients with improved outcome and less time in the hospital. i am 83 years old. i have seen in my own career and life that -- and that of my family that innovation in modern medicine moves at an astonishing speed. it is this is innovation that has so improved the quality of our lives as well as extending the life spans of americans. by far the most enlightening and informative exercise was three nights of teletown halls that i held during the break. on two nights the doctor joined me as a guest. over 180,000 telephone calls were placed, almost 20,000 people were home and listened

to some part of the town hall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bartlett: madam speaker, i believe that prescription for health care reform in the present bill will make it worse and more expensive. these changes are the opposite of what we need and americans want. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. kissell, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. kissell: thank you, madam speaker. it's truly with mixed emotions that i rise tonight on the floor of the house of representatives, it's a sadness in noting that last week we lost congressman w.g. "bill" hefner, a congressman from north carolina for 24 years frrks 1974 to 1998. and we truly give our condolences and our regards to his daughters, stacey and

shelly, and to his wonderful wife, nancy. but the legacy of bill hefner did not end last week. as we are going to see tonight as we spend some time remembering and talking about and telling stories of bill hefner that his memory will go forth because of the things he did, the person he was, and the congressman that represented his district of north carolina so well. now, i have to tell you, madam speaker, that tonight i shall refer to congressman hefner as mr. hefner quite often. because i was raised at a time and a place when the ultimate respect that you could give to someone is to call him miser. while his loving wife nancy convinced me i could call her nancy, i could not bring myself to call bill hefner anything

but mr. hefner because that's the respect that people in the district had for him. madam speaker, as some might be saying why is a freshman congressman from north carolina the first one to speak tonight? it's because bill hefner, mr. hefner, was my congressman. from the eighth district of north carolina and with all the reconfiguring that took place from time to time, my home county, montgomery county, north carolina, was always in mr. hefner's district. it was the way that mr. hefner represented us. once again who he was that we want to talk about tonight. madam speaker, i believe that one of the greatest ways we can remember is by telling stories. and tonight we are going to talk about mr. hefner and i have several colleagues and friends of not only myself but knew mr. hefner at the time and they have been so generous with

their time to be here tonight to help us remember. i just want to start out very briefly by just letting the story of bill hefner be told a little bit. bill hefner was born in tennessee. he went to alabama. he was the son of a sharecropper. he saw that his way out of poverty was through a gift that he had been given by god and that's through the singing the gospel music. he was very good. and he received an invitation to come to north carolina. this was a time period of the late 1950's and early 1960's when television, much different than it is today, when there was only a few station there is in north carolina, and they often filled their time and afternoons with gospel singing. mr. hefner was so good and his group was so good that they were asked to be part of three

television stations in north carolina. now, we didn't have that many stations so this was a great majority of the stations that were represented. he became known to the people of north carolina with his group the harvesters. he eventually was successful enough and a good businessman and he bought a radio station and at some point in time a former congressman came in and was interviewed by mr. hefner, and mr. hefner went home and told his wife, you know, i believe i can do that. because mr. hefner had never been elected to a public office. never sought public office. he was the president of his p.t.a. and that was his background. it was much stronger. he had the background of knowing the people of his district. so he went out, madam speaker, and he ran for congress and without any political background other than knowing

the people and caring about the people and the sense of who the people were, he was elected in a landslide. so that's the background to this man, w.g. "bill" hefner i want everybody to be aware of. now i'd like to fill in personal stories and start out by recognizing david obey, from wisconsin. mr. obey: i thank the gentleman for the time. let me simply say that i see bill in two ways. first of all i see him as a legislator. he was a good solid legislator, a member of the appropriations committee, and i watched him day after day conduct his business with grace and with courage. it was not popular. to oppose some of the tax and

budget proposals president reagan was pushing, for instance, in the 1980's. i know in my district at the time 70% of the country favored those changes. bill hefner had courage enough to point out that the numbers just didn't add up. he carried on his conviction and eventually facts proved him to be correct. bill was also a person who respected this institution, he respected the congress, he respected the country, he respected his party, he respected the other party, and he respected virtually every person in this institution. and it showed in the way he dealt with others in this body. but my greatest and fondest memory of bill is rooted in his gospel singing.

i happen to like bluegrass and i belong to a bluegrass band called the capital offenses. i learned to love gospel music. and on many occasion bill would sing and i and members of my band would back him up. and i have to say he was one of the best singers we ever performed with. he was -- he knew a wide range of gospel, but he also had a solid voice and he had fun doing it. he loved it. and you want to listen to him knew that he loved it. he was a man of courage. he had a terrific sense of

humor. and he could find a lot of ways to get things done by simply charming people in this place if logic wouldn't work, if substance wouldn't work, there was always the hefner charm to push things over the edge. i was greatly saddened to learn of his death last week. but i have to say that i'm proud to have served in the same institution with a man of his courage, with a man of his integrity, and with a man of his good humor. i'm certain that he will be missed by his family and his friends. i very much am grateful for the fact that i was able to know him and worked with him for all of those years. i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. kissell: i would like to add there about mr. hefner and his show biz background. one of the descriptions that was given to mr. hefner at one time i think he enjoyed the

most was, would be recognized that he had a show biz background, but he was a workhorse not a show horse. and that summed his career up very appropriately and he did enjoy that comparison. his humor and his ability to charm was pointed out to me one time on the house floor, evidently there was quite a serious debate taking place between two sides of the aisle and mr. hefner somehow got the attention of the madam speaker, the speaker at the time, and got the attention of the full house and looked at his watch and supposedly said, how much longer is this going to go on because i got to get home to watch "the andy griffith show"? in north carolina there is no higher calling than to go watch "the andy griffith show." at this time i'd like to yield to chet edwards to texas for the time he may consume. mr. edwards: madam speaker, i

consider myself blessed of knowing congressman bill hefner. he was a good, decent and caring person. and i will miss him dearly. while this man of faith has gone on to a better place now, his work here on earth will continue to enrich the lives of millions of american citizens. there are untold thousands of our troops and families who are living in bert housing today because -- better housing today because bill hefner was their champion. he not only worked hard for his beloved fort bragg, north carolina, he fought for a better quality of life for service men and women and their families wherever they might live in the world. as chairman of the house appropriations subcommittee on military construction, chairman hefner saw to it that the service and sacrifice of our troops would be honored in a meaningful way. while members of congress

sometimes take ourselves too seriously, bill hefner was a voice of self-deprecating humor and humility. he took his work seriously but never himself too seriously. . in doing so he helped us keep our proper perspective on ourselves and our work here. he used to joke that he had worked hard for over 20 years to take a perfectly safe democratic seat in north carolina and turn it into a marginal one. that was a reflection of his humor and his humility because the truth was that any political challenges that bill hefner might have ever faced were because he was a person of courage. as mr. obey pointed out, in 1981 he was one of the very few southern democrats who voted against the popular reagan tax cuts because he felt they would lead to large federal deficits. and ultimately undermine

programs important to everyday working americans. as long as i knew him he always did what he thought was right for his district and for our great country. and for average working families. in an age of special interests, bill hefner's cause was to fight for the interests of everyday hardworking families. the kind of people who fight our fires, protect our streets, defend our shores, educate our children and make our factories run. he believed to his core in the dignity of hardworking everyday american citizens. even after he retired from congress bill would often call me and he called when he was concerned that the views of working americans were not being considered in washington, d.c. whether in office or out of

office bill hefner lived his faith by always being his brother's keeper. bill hefner was a special personal friend and a mentor to me. while i cannot fill his shoes or come close to it, i'm a better congressman and a better person for having known him and having learned from him. i cherish the many, many personal conversations we had right here on the floor, madam speaker. and i will always be grateful to the very sage advice he gave me on a golf course one day when he and i happened to be partnered against then president clinton and the president's partner, when on the 15th hole and a very close match, the president had about a 3 1/2 foot putt, i was not going to give it to the president and chairman hefner called me over, put me under his arm and said, son, let me just tell you something, right now we have this line item veto in

existence in the military construction -- and the military construction bill is sitting on the president's bill for signature and you represent forth hood. i gave the president his putt and the fort hood soldiers got their barracks thanks to the sage advice of bill hefner. the moment of so many wonderful moments, but the moment i shall never forget was on june 4 of 1998 when bill hefner stood in this very same spot. we were debating an issue of the school prayer constitutional amendment. and i, consistent with my belief in the principle of constitutional principle of church and state separation, was opposing the amendment. during that process i was personaly attacked -- personally attacked by one particular faith-based group that claimed by not wanting to amend the first amendment to the constitution i was somehow unamerican and even i was

accused of being untexan. leave it to bill hefner, the man of the south, the gentleman from north carolina who sang gospel music his entire life, a man of deep faith, leave it to him to come to this very spot to stand up and defend the integrity of his colleague who had been challenged. that was bill hefner. a man of deep, of deepest integrity. and that's why i will always revere him. and what he stood for. to stacy and shelly, his daughters, and to nancy his widow, i would simply say that, if my two sons had every right to be half as proud of me as you have a right to be proud of your father and your husband, i would consider my life a success. may god forever keep our friend,

our colleague and a great american, bill hefner, forever in his loving arms. thank you. >> madam speaker, to kind of point out the legacy of how mr. hefner influenced people that -- i have not been sworn in but a matter of hours before i got a phone call from leaptive -- representative edwards telling me what a great influence that bill hefner was on him. and how that mentorship and role model is not forgotten. it continues from year to year to year. at this point in time i'd like to yield to our friend from south carolina, representative john spratt. mr. spratt: madam speaker, i came here in 1983. as i did, bill hefner was just coming into his own, speaking of

his name, you want to call him only mr. hefner. i remember one night we got an airplane as we did many nights, u.s. airways an someone spoke to him as congressman this and congressman that and the stewardess said, i didn't know you were a member of congress, what's your name? he said, bill hefner. she said, i don't believe i've ever heard of you. he said, you probably know my brother hugh. always ready with a quip like that. i rise to absolute this wonderful guy -- salute this wonderful guy with greatness in learning of his passing. i didn't -- great sad innocence learning of his passing. i didn't know him well but i knew him from the time i came here because i'd watched him as a boy on tv and he was the lead tenor on them and they were good. and they stayed that good harmonizing for the next 50 years. you couldn't beat them. they were just top rate.

howard got if in a frey with bill because he went into his district and spoke against him in an election. next election, bill returned the compliment, this time he was not speaking, though, he was singing. he went in and made three or four gospel singing experiences and packed the houses and everything and howard called him up and said, that is awfully surprised to see you come directly into my district. he said, howard, you came into my district. let's have this understood, next time i'm bringing a whole quartet. we're going to sing you right out of that seat, too. from there after, they had a mutual accord that one would stay out of the other's district. that's the kind of guy this is that we're talking about. a wonderful guy. he put on the airs of being a pop us will sometimes but he was a lot smarter than he put on and a lot richer for that matter. he looked at the reagan tax cuts and probably would have profited him and a lot of his

constituents and said it's not the right time, it'll only add to the deficit and he was proven only too right. we were debating in our caucus one morning years ago another tax cut that was not nearly the same side and he finally got up and said, i don't know why we're paying so much time talking about this tax cut, it ain't pg to benefit anybody but two people in this caucus, one of them's norm and the other is john spratt. i said, point of personal privilege, mr. chairman. this pop us will owns the second lateral largest cadillac dealer in north carolina and a radio station in concord. he loved it. never let me forget it. never jumped me again for being -- benefiting from tax cuts either. he became a voice that people listened to because he could get up and speak to something and go right to the pith of it. it's really a gift. and he had that gift. as i said, he was a lot smarter than he let on being.

one of my favorite recollections of bill's debate, we were debating the b.t. bomber, the b-2 bomber, he got up and said, you know, if this bomber's so stealthy as everybody says it is and you can't see it and find it and acar can't even see it, what i would suggest is we save ourselves $50 billion, let's don't build it and tell the russians we have built it, they'll go crazy trying to find it. that's the kind of humor he brought to the people's house. talking like that all the time with a humorous cover to it but a for real-serious substantive to it as well. he was a great guy. this place has been known through the centuries as the house of the people, bill hefner helped this house earn its reputation as the house of the people. we will miss him greatly. he served here with real distinction, he deserves every word of praise being said about him tonight the thank you, mr.

chairman -- tonight. thank you, madam chair. mr. kissell: thank you, mr. spratt. madam speaker, there's -- if we had opened this up to everybody who knew congressman hefner, who could have been here tonight, we couldn't have come close to getting this in within an hour. there's so many people that he affected. and i certainly appreciate the colleagues that are with us tonight and next i'd like to recognize fellow congressman from north carolina, mr. david price. mr. price: i thank my colleague for scheduling this time tonight for us to remember our friend and colleague, bill hefner, to honor his memory. i first got to know bill when i came to this body in 1987. he was already a fairly senior member, became an important

mentor to me and a valued friend and colleague. as many of -- have said already, bill came from a pummel background, he never lost touch with working people, he had a natural empathy and understanding of people who were struggling in life, great sympathy for the underdog, a man of great compassion and that compassion was not feigned, it was something that came naturally to bill. and an innate sense in bill of fairness and decency. there's not pg to be a speaker here tonight, i promise you, that doesn't refer to bill's sense of humor. he was the funniest man probably that ever served in this chamber. he could cut through tense moments and these overheated debates in a way that was a marvel to behold. sometimes as mr. edwards said,

he showed great courage in the way he dealt with those debates. virginia a memory very similar to edwards. this one comes earlier when i had been here only a year or so. it was a debate of a so-called growth city bill which was a proposal that unfortunately would have put an adverse interpretation on civil rights laws. and it was a bill that the affect of which was being greatly depadge rate -- exaggerated by a prominent figure of the religious right that time. said that if this bill was passed churches would have to, and i'm quoting him here, to hire a practicing active homosexual, drug addict with aids to be a teacher or youth pastor. well bill hefner was watching this go on and, like all of us,

he was getting his switch board flooded with calls coming in alarmed about this from well-meaning people who didn't know what to make of this. i wrote a book a couple of years later and remembered, look back at this episode, because it impressed me so much at the time and my chapter on religion and politics, i quoted bill hefner, what he said coming to this floor and cutting through that debate and the words i'm going to read don't do justice to the affect he had. bill said, i find reprehensible not those thousands of people who have made the phone cause but the people that have instigated this misinformation. if it means i lose my position in the u.s. house of representatives if i do not cave

in and base my vote on what people believe to be true but what i know not to be true, i say to my colleagues, this job is not worth that to me. i remembered that and looked it up and it still stands for me as a memory of effective debate in this house, effective not just rhetorically but because of its being said from the heart and it being said with true conviction. bill was a member of the appropriations committee, chairman of the subcommittee on military construction, champion of our service men and women, of their housing, of their quality of life. an elementary school at fort bragg bears his name. bill was a mentor to many of us. he gave me pep talks on more

than one difficult vote. he could put everything in perspective. and i valued that mentorship, that support, that encouragement. helped me -- he helped me get on the appropriations committee and then he helped me figure out how to get things done once i got on the appropriations committee. . he was a member who helped us all stick together, whom we all liked and respected. we enjoyed his company. and i think it's fair to say that bill's role in our delegation has never quite been filled since he left. i remember very well the dinner that was given for bill shortly before his retirement, the harvest ters qartet, they came in and sang one more time.

and bill's friends and associates and colleagues got up one after the other and told many stories like those we've heard tonight. it was one of the most enjoyable and heart-warming evenings that i have ever experienced in this city or anywhere else. i'm pleased to join tonight in honoring bill and recalling our friendship, our common labors with him. he served north carolina and this nation faithfully and well in ways that continue to inspire. thank you. mr. kissell: thank you, david. and i think as was just pointed out that while we have memories of mr. hefner and how he could turn serious conversations with humor and charm that when

necessary, he stood up for his beliefs and effectively stated those in a way that spoke of the core being that he was. madam speaker, i would like to next recognize another the gentleman from north carolina, representative bob egget recommending. mr. etheridge: -- etheridge. mr. etheridge: i would like to thank representative kissell for organizing this special order this evening for a good friend and as you have heard, a 12-term member of this body. bill hefner, who passed away on wednesday, september 2 of this year, provided selfless service to our state of north carolina and to this nation as you have heard from a number of my colleagues already. but in his passing, we have lost a good friend.

north carolina's lost an outstanding citizen and a man who was instrumental not only in this body, but instrumental in his community, in his state, everything he did. nancy has lost a devoted husband . stacey and shelly have lost a loving father. and he was a grandfather also who loved children. you heard he was a native of tennessee. first time i remember meeting bill hefner was more years ago than i want to admit. i was running for state superintendent. if you run in north carolina, that's an elected office. anybody who has a good side of the group, you want to be there. and i went to the 8th district. and it was the largest group i went to all year, other than where all the educators got

together and bill was doing his own thing at his own rally and i thought that was the most unusual political rally. i had heard of bill, but never met him. he knew how to politic in a unique way. the gospel singing he was singing at, it didn't make any difference if they were republican, democrat, conservative or liberal, he was their man. he had a message. they believed in him and he made a difference in their lives. yes, he was president and owner of a radio station and he made a difference and he was a bright person, much smarter than he wanted to admit and yes, he had more resources than he ever acknowledged. you would think he was the

poorest guy in the room when you were around him, but he did ok. he was the leader of the har investigater's quartet. congressman price talked about how he came to my district. held a gospel singing and called me ahead of time letting me know he was going to be there. he said if you are available, i might show up and say a good word for you. when bill came to your district, you better show up. he filled up the civic center. and bill enjoyed that as much as he loved his family, as he loved being in this body. and he was a businessman at heart, because as soon as he finished on that stage, he was selling those cassettes. he had a delightful time and the

people loved him. but that was bill hefner. he enjoyed what he was doing, whether he was legislating, singing or telling a good story. you know, as i came to know bill over the years and only served with him here two, i understood that his political service really was an extension of his gospel singing, which really was what he loved to do. he cared about people. he cared about what he did. he cared about his religion. and both of those were powerful ways for him to serve his fellow man. many of the members of the north carolina delegation, as you already heard from congressman price, learned the ropes of advocating for our constituents here in washington from bill. when i first came, any member who's a freshman here, you have

better services now than when i came here 14 years ago. bill said, if you need a place to meet with folks, you can use my office. somebody who is coming up here and hadn't been to washington much, that meant a lot. he opened the doors of his office. i used it to meet constituents and other people, but that's what bill hefner was about. he was about making you feel at home. he led by example, both as a public official and later as a private citizen. he was known for his passionate support of our military veterans as you already heard this evening. he only represented fort bragg in the last few years. but he represented them every day as a member of this body. and that's why you have a school on that base named for him. you have military hospitals named for him because they knew

that bill hefner was a friend of veterans, friend of small business owners. and as you heard this evening, he was a friend of the working poor as well as the middle class. his life of service will continue to inspire all that knew him. and his love for north carolina can be seen through his work on our highways and in our schools and our veterans' hospitals, and yes, in the laws that he helped pass in this body. he retired from congress almost a decade ago, but his work and influence will not be forgotten. he was a respected legislator, a dedicated public servant and a great north carolinaian. it is fitting that we honor bill hefner and his family this evening. madam speaker, i join his family

and our state in mourning a great legislator and a tremendous human being. i yield back. mr. kissell: madam speaker, continuing the north carolina trend, i would like to recognize representative brad miller from north carolina. mr. miller: i also rise to honor congressman bill hefner and i appreciate mr. kissell organizing this tribute tonight. mr. hefner, congressman hefner had a downhome style that never changed. some folks in washington thought it didn't really fit with their idea of what an influential member of congress, an effective member of congress is supposed to be like, but that was always their problem, not his problem. he never changed. everyone who spoke tonight has spoken of the harvestes, his gospel music group he continued to sing in.

his political rallies continued to be gospel sings. that sounds something like out of the 1930's movies, but this was still in the 1990's he was doing this. long past the era that was dominated by political smart guys who led polls and produced tv ads and political rallies were supposed to be three people sitting in front of their television when a political ad came on. during that period, bill hefner was still doing political rallies that were gospel sings and packing large halls. it wasn't just -- it wasn't just political rallies. he had performed at benefits and a hospital named after him and it was very popular with the veterans who were in those hospitals. and he did become a great advocate for veterans, great

advocate for our men and women in uniform. he visited military installations and saw the conditions that our military were living and became a crusader for better housing for our troops. bill hefner ran for congress on the promise to be a spokesman, a representative, a voice for the common man. he remained faithful to that promise. he never changed. he was the same guy when he ended his service after 24 hours, one of the most influential members of the appropriations committee, a cardinal. he was the same guy as he was when he was elected. he understood working americans because he was one. he may eventually have done very well, but that's where he started and that's where his heart always was. he always understood what life was like for ordinary americans. i am proud to be here tonight to honor bill hefner and i'm very

grateful that he is an example for all of us who still represent north carolina in congress. thank you. mr. kissell: madam speaker, i would like to recognize the majority leader, steny hoyer. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house and my friend larry kissell, who is doing a wonderful job representing the district that bill hefner loved and whose people loved bill hefner. i came to congress in 1981. bill had been here for six, seven years when i got here. he was on the appropriations committee. i went on the appropriations committee not too along after coming here. bill hefner has been talked about by his friends from north carolina and i know chairman obey who served with bill on the appropriations committee, as i did for well over a decade can

tell, i'm sure, numerous stories late into the night about bill hefner. and what warm memories i have of him. bill hefner sitting in the aisle back here and all my colleagues remember, he would sit on the aisle and if you'd go by, bill would look up with a twinkle in his eye and would tell you story after story after story. i remember one night i was going to give a speech and i want add few jokes and i called him up and he gave me a couple of jokes and i used them and they worked really well. i could say bill was my writer, i suppose. but he was a wonderful, wonderful representative. and he was a representative in the best sense of that term. he represented his people. he represented north carolina. he represented his country. he represented the men and women

in our armed forces, whom he loved and whom he served with great fervor and affection. bill hefner loved his country. he loved his colleagues and his colleagues loved bill hefner. been talked about how he loved to play golf. i like to play golf as well. i'm not very good, but i love to play, like so many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people in this country. we play at it, i suppose. but bill was a good golfer. and he had a tournament down at pinehurst every year and i used to go down and play with bill. you not only went down to play golf, you just went down to have this warm, gracious outreaching human being make you feel good about serving with him in the

congress and make you feel good about north carolina and your country. bill hefner was a great resource of north carolina. he then moved furget south and became a county commissioner for a little bit. my good friend is telling me. bill hefner will be missed. bill hefner used to tell me, he said, you know, steny, i was elected in my district. it was a safe district then and i worked very hard and i have turned it into a marginal district. that was one of his favorite sayings, larry. the good news for you, mr. kissell, you're going to do the opposite. you're going to take a district that could have gone either way and turn it into a safe district. i appreciate that. but nobody would have been appreciated it more than bill hefner. brad miller, friend of bill

hefner's colleague from north carolina, told the story about how bill was a singer and a real talent and loved to sing and loved to entertain, loved to be a comedian and loved to make people as i say, feel good and he accomplished that with great frequency and great ability. we'll bill hefner. bill hefner is what's good about our country, which he loved so dearly. and as i said, loved the men and women who served in the armed forces and served them so well as chairman of the military construction committee. i had the opportunity to travel to germany and other nato allies in europe with him in the 1980's. and it was clear that he was extraordinarily knowledgeable about the needs of our men and women stationed overseas in terms of the quality of their life. he mirrored ike skeleton or ike

skeleton mirrors bill hefner. i'm pleased, larry kissell, to join you, your colleagues from north carolina, my chairman i served on the committee for 23 years, chairman obey, my good friend, chet edwards, who now chairs the same subcommittee that bill hefner chaired. bill was also a member of the armed services committee, of course. so, so i thank you for letting me know you're doing this special order to rise in memory, respect, and deep affection for a wonderful american, a wonderful advocate of his faith, a wonderful family man, and a wonderful member of this body.

god bless america -- god blessed america when he gave us william g. her for the. i yield back. mr. kissell: thank you, steny. madam speaker, i'm going to conclude now, but you don't finish when you talk about bill hefner because as we've seen tonight, the legacy will not end, it will continue for all the good things he did. i want to talk a little bit about the personal side of bill her for the and what he meant to me. all these things i heard tonight, as i mentioned earlier, he was my congressman. i must say that while those many years he represented us, i wasn't involved in party politics, i never ran for public office, like mr. hefner. and there came a time that i felt that maybe that was what people like myself should do because that's what bill hefner had done.

he was a man of the people and recognized the working people and he stood up for those people and i said, you know, we have seen in our district the wonderful eighth district of north carolina, where if you go out to the people and you tell them who you are and they recognize in you the knowledge that you know who they are and respect them and you are concerned about them we saw for 24 years, those people will reward you by sending you to congress. so it was with knowledge of what mr. hefner had done that i ran for congress and i come from a small down, bisco, north carolina, 1,500 people. needless to say, it wasn't exactly a turning moment in north carolina politics when i announced i would run for congress. it was with the legacy of mr. bill hefner that people looked to the person for what they say and not who they are and not where they come from one time

in my home county, montgomery county, which is also a small county, president bill clinton was coming to visit our local hospital. he was accompanied by mr. hefner and together they went visiting there in the hospital. i heard this story, i think it kind of sums up everything about bill hefner. they went into the room, the president and mr. hefner went to the room of a patient, mr. hefner said, i'm bill hefner and this is president clinton. and the gentleman, the patient said, you're bill hefner? i've been wanting to meet you all the my -- all my life. you're a wonderful congressman. i've even sent you a little bit of money. and i love the way you sing, you're the best singer ever.

never once recognizing the president of the united states was also in the room, it was all about bill hefner. bill hefner's favorite song was, if i can help someone. mr. hefner, and shelly and stacy and nancy, please note that you have helped many people. thank you so much and god bless bill hefner. madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker, for recognizing me for this hour. for many weeks now, i've been coming to the floor with my colleagues to talk about something that i think is the glue that holds our republic together. that is the fact that the rule of law does and should prevail in this nation. by the rule of law, it means we have, we are able as a people to establish a set of rules. whether they be legal rules or ethical rules or rules of this

house or rules of this nation, we agree to abide by those rules. and those rules, they cover every element of our life. the rule of contract. we don't violate criminal laws. we have laws that govern this house. we have rules that govern -- that govern this house. they're the glue that holds this society together. when we see the society having people who are -- people or events that cause the glue to weaken, i think it's our duty and responsibility as members of this house to step up and say, hey, this is out of control. this has got to stop. the rule of law has to prevail. we have rules, we have responsibilities to keep those rules. and we as a congress should hold each other to those rules.

the congress of the united states, like many other bodies in this country, has a set of rules and we police ourselves up. we're not the only group of people that do this. the medical associations do it, the bar associations do it. they have within their own membership committees that police up the activities of their own members. and the whole purpose is so that they can correct issues before they get out of hand and if something is out of hand, have the strength of their convictions, their association, that they will stand for what's right, even if it's difficult. and they'll do the right thing, even if it's difficult. and i've been raising issues on the floor of this house with the help of my colleagues now for about 10 weeks. and some of these issues, one in particular which i've had some amount of fun with, and

actually i've done, i've created what's called the rangel rule to spotlight some issues that involve the chairman of the ways and means committee. but over this august break, after talking about all the things that were not resolved by our present ethics committee concerning chairman rangel, more things have arisen which makes it so -- it raises the issue to such a level that just absolutely cannot be ignored anymore. and we have an ethics committee and the american people should demand that if we are going to set up system where we police up this house, that we need to get behind the business of policing up this house. if it has to do with a member who, by his own admission has, either through error or intent,

broken the rules of this house, then the ethics committee should not be deadlocked on political lines but should resolve this issue. and if it's not going to be done, then the leadership of this house should take control of this house, they were given by all the members of this house the speaker of the house was given the authority to be in charge of this house of representatives. and it's their job. it's the job she signed onto. it's the responsibility she took to make sure that this house runs by certain rules. and when blatantly issues come forward, until newspapers across this nation are crying out that some kind of justice needs to be done in an issue, if we're not going to do it, we're failing the very

foundation of our republic. so tonight, i'm joined by my colleagues, maybe many of them here tonight, we're going to talk about some of these issues that involve our friend, and i say that, i want to say that specifically, i have no personal animosity whatsoever against mr. rangel. in fact, i will tell you he's been nothing but kind to me since i've been in this house. i've tried to be kind back. but there is an issue that needs to be resolved. it should not be resolved just by saying, on the floor of this house, i'm sorry. it should be resolved by following the rules established by this house. that's what this is all about. it is not personally aimed at anyone. it is about this institution and the fact that the american people are more and more distrusting this congress for reasons just like the reason we're talking about tonight, that they see things that upset them, that would upset them in

their workplace if they were to have that happen. they say, why are not the people we sent to washington resolving this issue? what is wrong with those people? we need to ask those questions of ourselves. so i want to make it very clear, this is not personal. this is about the rule of law and the responsibility of this house. i'm joined by my good friend, virginia foxx, who is going to talk to us, she is from north carolina, she's going to talk to us a little bit tonight. i yield such time as she may consume. ms. foxx: i want to thank my colleague from texas for having begun this dialogue and this talk tonight about the rule of law. i often say, when i'm speaking to groups, particularly of young people, that what has made our country so great are

several things. but underlying all of those is the rule of law. i think the three most outstanding are the rule of law, our judeo christian heritage and our capitalistic economic system. we couldn't have those -- we couldn't have, though, our ability to worship god as we please and our capitalistic economic system if it weren't for the rule of law undergirding those. when you look at other countries in this world, other countries in this hemisphere, you will see mexico, for example, has been in the news a lot lately. they have many, many natural resources, as we do here. but what has created the problems for mexico is that it's such a corrupt system. they do not operate by the rule are of law. and most americans just accept

what we have in this country as something that exists everywhere, and it doesn't. if we allow the rule of law to be torn down, then we really undermine our entire country and our entire culture. i want to -- i want to tell a little story, because i agree with congressman carter on everything that he has said tonight, none of this is personal, this is all about the very strong and positive feeling that all of us have for the house of representatives and for our government. i may get choked up in telling this story, but i think it's -- it was a great thing that happened today because it allows me to explain to people why i feel so strongly about what has happened. . i was on my way over here after

6:00 to vote. i was coming a little early so i could get in between commercials and watch a little bit of the news before we had to come in to vote. as i was coming up the steps towards the capitol, i noticed this couple, i don't know their age, i would say middle-aged couple, since i don't want to guess people's ages and i notice the woman spoke to one of our gait security guards out there and i saw her walk up on the capitol steps and touch the building and then walk away. and i could tell that she had asked permission to do that. and so i walked over to her and her husband and i said to her, would you all like to go inside the capitol? and she got very emotional and said well, we have never been to washington before and this is our first time here and i

thought all i had the hope of doing was touching the outside of the building. she said i don't have the words to express what a thrill it would be to go inside the building. and i asked them if i could use their names, gary and vickie clausen from oregon. i brought them in and brought them into the members' gallery and explained about the gallery here and told them that we were about to vote and i explained some things to them and answered some questions and told them that between the first and second vote i would come back and answer the rest of their questions and they just kept on saying, we are so thrilled to be in this building. we are in such awe of the building and our government. and you know, i thought, we need more people like that in our country. we need people who feel in awe

of our government. we need people who get a thrill out of walking inside the capitol. after voting, i gave them a little bit more of a tour and they just stayed that way. they were so grateful to me, but i was grateful to them, because when we meet people like that, we need to cherish that because these are folks who understand what this country's all about. and they feel in awe toward their government. and i don't want people to stop feeling that way. and if we, as members of congress, don't uphold the highest standards amongst ourselves, then the majority of the people will stop feeling that way about our country. and we will lose our country. you know mr. franklin was asked

when they signed the constitution, what kind of country -- what kind of government have you giving us, he said, the republic, if you can keep it. if we're going to maintain our republic and maintain what's good about this country and maintain the rule of law, then we cannot have a double standard. i agree with the president and his comment. we cannot have two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks. it is bad policy to have different rules for members of congress than for the rest of the public. and i've told the people i represent, i will never ever vote for anything knowingly giving a different set of rules for people in congress than we have for everybody else. we shouldn't have a double standard. and i'm very concerned. i also point out to people when we come into this room, the

ancient law givers whose faces are in profile. i know c-span doesn't show them, but what i want to point out, they are all in profile except one and that's the one over the center door and that's moses looking down on us. when he brought us the 10 commandments, they weren't divided into a and b. they weren't divided. some people shall not, but others may, because they have power. all those 10 commandments apply to all of us and it's very important that we make sure that we pay attention to the fact that moses is looking down on us every day and that we have a responsibility to the people of this country to live by the laws

that have been set for everyone in this country. and like my colleague from texas , i have a good relationship with mr. rangel as far as i know. he is a very affable, almost always siling, jovial. so this has nothing to do with him personally but it's the congress and house of representatives must abide by our own laws. and if we establish laws that say, particularly here, that we have to report our income, that we have to report our assets, it is not right for some members to leave things out and other members to report everything. we must uphold the rules and the laws. and so i want to commend again my colleague from texas for putting together this special order tonight and i know there are others here who will add to

the discussion that we're having. and so i want to yield back to judge carter and ask him to take back over. mr. carter: reclaiming my time, we have a poster that has a picture of our president and as the gentlelady just pointed out, he points out, i campaigned on changing washington and bottom-up politics. i don't want to send a message to the american people that there are two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes. i think that's a commendable statement by the president of the united states. and the issue we are talking about here today is an issue that involves what some would argue is the most powerful chairmanship in the house of representatives and that is the chairmanship of the ways and

means committee. and i have a brief exhibit that we can talk about and some of the allegations that concern mr. rangel. underreporting income and assets in 2007 by more than half, including failure to report income from his caribbean resort property again. those listening will recall this all started because the chairman got up here on the floor of the house and told us that he failed to report rental incomes for certain years on his caribbean property. and he said that i paid the taxes and if they assess any penalties and interest, i'll pay the penalties and interest. and after a long time -- this is an income tax situation. after a long time of not paying income tax on income, that no penalties and interest were assessed.

i came up with the idea of the rangel rule, which said that if the chairman of the ways and means can be excused for his penalties and interest for failure to pay taxes, any other american who fails to pay theirs can exercise the rangel rule and have the penalties and interest waived. i did that to point out what the president of the united states said, he did not want to happen in this country, people of power getting special treatment over ordinary folks. and so the purpose was to point out, it looked like to me that is what is going on here. so that's happened again. underreporting of income and assets. not only did the chairman not report these things, people he is responsible for didn't report them. lease of apartments in harlem. special lease. use of a parking lot for long-term storage of his car.

failure to report and pay taxes on rental income on his villa in the dominican republic. alleged quid pro quo legislative action in exchange for donations to a center named for rangel. and violation of his trip to the caribbean resort by the news foundation in 2007 and 2008. these are a list of some of the allegations that are going on. and there's more. there's more to be discussed. i'm joined by many of my colleagues and i'm glad to see my friend, mr. west more land from georgia and i will give him whatever time he chooses. mr. westmoreland: i thank my friend from texas and in the spirit you're doing this and you are doing it in the right spirit that it's nothing personal. all we're saying is that we feel like what the president said

back in february of this year should be lived up to by the members of his party that are in control of this house. it's interesting that you brought up the caribbean trip and the fact that the chairman of the investigation of this caribbean trip to my friend from texas was a participant in one of these caribbean trips. that seems to be a little bit of a conflict of interest in itself. and then as you mentioned some of these are in the hands of the house ethics committee. they are being investigated. but mr. rangel has given political contributions to three of the five democrats that are on this panel that are investigating him. and so there seems to be some conflict of interest. as the gentleman stated, and my friend from north carolina

stated, i think the american people want to be free from any sort of insinuation that there could be some corruption not only from his filings or reportings of his assets and liabilities as we are required by the house rules, but in this investigation. and i think it's very interesting that -- i'm sure the gentleman from texas will bring up but under h.r. 3200 when the health care bill went through mr. rangel's committee, the ways and means committee who is looking for revenue to pay for this, that it is interesting that they came up with some new tax laws that would actually punish those who fail to alert the i.r.s. to potentially questionable tax exemptions, those people who are willing to come clean and kind of tell on

themselves if they find out that something has been in error, bar the i.r.s. from waiving penalties against taxpayers who clearly erred in good faith and this goes back to what my friend from texas was talking about that mr. rangel has acknowledged this was a mistake and no penalties and interest. yet, it seems so unbelievable that in this legislation that came out of his committee that he wants to almost double the fines in those instances. in fact, one provision of the measure would double the fine against the taxpayer from 20% of the underpayment to 40%. and this goes back to what the president's statement said. we don't need to have one set of standards for those people who are powerful and nobody can deny the power of the chairman of the

ways and means committee in this house versus that of the ordinary person, the guy that works every day and is paying his taxes. and may have made some type of mistake. we all make mistakes. this brings us back to the house rules and we are talking about being a country of laws and this body should certainly live by the laws that it sets for itself in the reporting. and i'm sure many of us in here have had to amend these things or think of something and we'll amend it, but when you amend it for twice of what it was of things that you forgot and whole list of things that chairman rangel said that he forgot to list but some of those were pretty eye-opening things that he forgot and not only goes to him but to his staff that help him write these legislations and

one of them i think is his legal staff, once his chief, that have gone back and actually filed amendments back since 2002. and so i think that just under the cloud of this suspicion that the right thing for chairman rangel to do would be to step down until this investigation is complete. and i don't think that's too much to ask. and there's a lady that writes for "the atlanta journal-constitution" that i have not agreed with a lot, but in this case i do agree with her and her name is cynthia tucker and i would like to read for the record the comment she made on september 4 of this year. . rangel ought to do the honorable thing and step down. he amended financial disclosure forms to report hundreds of thousands of dollars of income

he earned between 2002 and 2006. he forgot a merrill lynch account valued between $250,000 and $500,000. i don't know about my friend from texas, but if i had that much money, i don't know that i'd forget about it. he neglected to mention tens of thousands in rent from a new york brookstone he once owned and his ownership of tens of thousands of dollars of mu nice pal bonds also slipped his mind. this comes from a very liberal writer for the "a.j.c.," there's more from the "buffalo news," the "washington post" and so on and so on of people that see this for what it is and the fact that under this cloud of suspicion, the right thing for the chairman to do would be to step aside until the air can be cleared and this investigation can be completed. so again, i want to thank my friend from texas for bringing

this up, the spirit in which he's bringing it up and i've had a lot of constituents ask me if they could claim the rangel rule on their tax. so my friend from texas has certainly got that message out. we don't know that -- what the outcome of this will be but i think the eyes of this country are on this one particular interest, to see how we handle it and how we handle ourselves. so with that, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. carter: reclaiming my time, i want to point out the timeline so everybody has a clear picture. it was almost a year ago when the chairman took this floor and told us about the first event where he failed to pay taxes on real income. he said he inadvertently did it, he didn't realize how he had it structured that he was getting income from it. and that he was paying the

taxes and that he did not expect any penalties and interest to be assessed. now, that was a year ago. what the gentleman from georgia was just describing was a provision that was placed in this health care bill that we are debating today and we're going to hear from the president of the united states tomorrow, and we've been debating -- we've been discussing for the entire august recess, we've been discussing in town halls across this country, i did 10, one of which was a tea party. thousands of people showed up to talk about this. and they talk about this bill. and i think that's what really should upset you to realize that when the chairman did not have penalties and interest assessed against him in his

misfiling, he is putting a provision in the law that they're trying -- the democrats are trying to pass through congress right now, which would mean the ordinary person would pay double penalties and interest for fail to alert the i.r.s. of potential questionable tax exemptions, bar the i.r.s. for waiving penalties, they wouldn't be able to waive penalty like they did for chairman rangel, by his own provision in the language he placed in it, that there would be fines. if this keeps going on and on in the chairman's life at some point it would seem to me, this is getting blatant. yet the american people will have double fines and we're seeing the chairman having no penalties and no interest being assessed against him.

that's what we're talking about. that's what the president of the united states said. that's what he wanted for the american people is that ordinary people and people who have positions of influence in this country should be treated exactly the same under the law and that is what the rule of law is all about. we establish rules and those rules will be for everybody. and there'll be no exception for the prince or the pauper. that's the way it's supposed to be. and the -- this prince of the house has actually written new rules into this bill, another reason not to vote for this bill as far as i'm concerned. it's because it doesn't treat the american people as fairly, if this is fair, as he got treated. so this -- when we're talking about the rule of law, we're

trying to tell you that the cement binds us together as a people. one of my good friends, who is here from the state of georgia, another great georgian, one thing is the georgians will answer the call, they're always there, is my frent phil beginning ree a physician from the state of georgia, one of my classmates and personal -- phil beginning ree -- begin gree,. it pains me. i'm pleased to join with my colleagues who youst spoke, the gentleman from texas,, the other gentleman from texas, another judge from texas, which we'll be hearing from in another few minutes. as painful as it is, madam

speaker, to discuss the subject of this manner and magnitude, i think it's important that we do it. i think it's important that we have the courage to do it. because i think the american people are watching what we do. i think that this recent district work period of the month of august, a traditional time when members are back in the district meeting with their constituents, holding town hall meets, -- meetings, this is something that didn't happen just this august, it's been a tradition for probably 100 years. people this year, though, while we might typically have 25 or 50 or really good day, 75 people, it was 500 and 1,000 and 1,500. and unbelievable how engaged the american people are now in

-- and who want desperately to be heard. madam speaker, this business of being out of control and being a gang and being a mob, no, no. they're patriots is what they are, madam speaker. they're mostly wereried about losing medicare, particularly medicare advantage, that program is being cut 17% per year over the next 10 years, i think $170 billion taken out of that one program where 20% of seniors, by the way, like that so much that that's what they choose to receive their health care is medicare advantage, not medicare fee for service. people are outraged and they are so frustrated that powerful members of congress are not

listening to them. and it's not always their member. but it's the leadership. it's the committee chairs that have control over significant pieces of legislation such as the america's affordable health choices act of 2009, h.r. 1249. they know that mr. waxman is chairman of the energy and commerce committee, where most of the bill was written. they know that representative charles rangel from new york, long-serving member since 1971, chairs the most powerful ways and means committee. they the that george miller, the gentleman from california, long-serving senior member, chairs the education and labor committee. they're very frustrated, they want to be heard, and so here we're talking tonight about

grave concerns that we fellow members have in regard to the ethical standards and behavior of people in this body who are in the highest positions, my goodness, one of the two most powerful standing committees of the house of representatives probably the appropriations committee and the ways and means committee on the one hand, the appropriations committee, is charged with spending the $3 trillion or so dollars a year in the federal budget and the ways and means committee, led by the chairman, is charged with raising the money to fund all these federal government programs. people are getting a little concerned and upset with $787 billion stimulus packages and deficit spending in the year 2009 of $1.8 trillion and

deficit that's calculated not by me, not by my republican colleagues, but by the office of management and budget, which is the number crunchers, ph.d. economists, that are hired by and are part of the obama administration, that says over the next 10 years there's going to be $9 trillion of deficit in the aggregate. that much more debt, $20 trillion worth of debt at the end of the next 10 years. so people are very concerned about the integrity, the honesty, and the fair play of these powerful members. our colleague from north carolina, ms. foxx, she's so outstanding and she was talking just a few minutes ago about the old testament. and moses. and the commands. she can turn a phrase, i think,

better than most every member in this body. but i was reading recently in the old testament, book of duet ronmy, and -- of deuteronmy, and moses was saying to the jewish people, look god gave me these laws to give to you. these are not suggestions. these are commands and you're not to add to them, and you're not to take away from them. you are to follow them exactly as god has commanded. and has given that command to me to give to you. well you know, that's pretty sacred stuff. the ultimate sacred stuff, i should say. but here in the house of representatives, the rules of behavior, the standards of official conduct, indeed the house committee on the standards of official conduct,

are pretty darn sacred too, madam speaker. they're in the suggestions -- they're not suggestions, they're really there so that every member is treated fairly, from the least to the greatest, from the freshman member to the member that served 35 years and chaired one of the most powerful committees on the house of representatives. when we see things like this and what representative carter has brought out in regard to these new findings of oops, i just overlooked $600,000 worth of income. it was a stock account that i had forgotten about. well, you know, that -- you don't forget about things like that. you don't forget about it. let me talk to my colleague and make sure that everybody understands, when we have that

to the fill out financial disclosure reports on an annual basis, as required by the standards of official conduct, my chief of staff will come to me and say, congressman, we need to go through this 401k, this i.r.a. that you've had when you were working as a physician and of course it's kind of frozen now, because you're not continuing to put money into it. but we have to look at every mutual fund and go through each one and see on each individual stock, within a mutual fund, and you may have six or eight or 10 different mutual funds in a 401k or i.r.a. my chief of staff says to me, you've got to, every stock in this, you've got to list whether it gained money or lost money, whether something was bought or something was sold. and you know, it's very time

consuming and rather painful. but for a good purpose because the american people want to know, they want to be able to look in a transparent way. they want to know who all the wealth -- who are the wealthiest members of congress. they also want to know, who are those who have absolutely no assets, no wealth other than their annual salary they receive from the taxpayer from this house of representatives. it's important for a lot of people to try to understand that, to kind of follow the dollar and see where maybe influence is applied, why people vote in the way, or if there's any suggestion that someone might cast their vote based on contributions or anything of that sort. and no one is in here enriching themselves at the expense of john q. public who is struggling every day just to maintain a job and to feed his family and spor his children

and hope they get to go -- and support his children and hope they get to go to college someday, and unfortunately in this deep recession we're in, some six million have lost their jobs over the last couple of years so this is a very, very serious issue that judge carter, madam speaker, brings before us and i think, i think that the gentleman from new york, who chairs this powerful committee, should step aside while the house committee on standards of official conduct is doing its investigation. now to his credit, he asked the committee to look into this over a year ago, but madam speaker, he should, i feel, that he should have stepped aside at that point, but now here we are a year later, and all of a sudden, this additional oops, i forgot, well, you know, if he won't

voluntarily to do this, i think it's he -- it's the responsibility of the body and the leadership of the body, the speaker, whose seat you're sitting in right now as her designee this evening, and she'll be there tomorrow night sitting right beside the president of the senate, the gentleman mr. biden, and of course we'll be hearing from president obecause mark we don't want this body this house this chamber to be tainted, and i think it's time for the gentleman from new york to be strong, maybe he will be found to have not violated any ethical rules of this chamber, we're not certainly putting him on trial here tonight and i'm sure my colleagues would agree with that, but i think the right thing to do, i think it's courageous for judge carter to

bring this forward and none of us are perfect, but everybody one -- but every one of us need to be honest with the american people and explain our actions or have others who are officially designated to do that look into it and let's get to the bottom of it. with that, i yield back to my friend from texas as i know there are others here wanting to speak. . mr. carter: i want to point out and say something that's very important. this weekend, i had a couple of opportunities where i was interviewed by national news organizations on television. one of the questions that was asked of me was at least there has been some inference this is a racially motivated situation that i'm in right here. and my statement and i'll stick to this statement because it's

the truth. this issue is not about race. this issue is about responsibility. and meeting the responsibilities of this house. mr. rangel needs to meet his responsibilities. and quite frankly, the speaker of the house needs to meet her responsibilities. i'm referring you to the "buffalo news," rangel should resign. and it says -- tells us what we have been talking about. and it says, if he won't, speaker nancy pelosi needs to push him. last year he said he had $75,000 of reported income. rangel failed to report half a million in assets in 2007 and his net worth is twice what he claimed in 2008. the odds of simple error falls to near zero when it happens

twice and both times in your financial favor. this is pelosi's -- she should give rangel a week to do the right thing and if he doesn't, she must. this is about responsibility and that's what we're talking about, being responsible to the rules of this house and to the rules of law. and now, there are two individuals here that have the opportunity to do what is right and be responsible and that is the chairman and the speaker. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman would yield and you have hit on a point that i've just got to address. the president spoke to the american school children today and i think the president did a fine job. i mean the speech -- i know early on there may have been concerns about curriculum, recommendations, that sort of

thing, but i heard the secretary of education over the weekend, secretary duncan talk about this upcoming speech and i couldn't agree more with what he said on sunday morning, very logical, made sense to me and the president gave a very powerful speech to the american school children and taught just what judge carter just mentioned about, personal responsibility and doing the right thing even when it's tough, even when it's hard to do that. and golly, if our leaders in the highest position of our country can't do that, how do we expect kids in the fifth grade how do i expect my 11-year-old twin granddaughters who are in the fourth grade and i talk to them all the time about the personal responsibility of going a little beyond what's required, doing more, getting up earlier if you need to to do your homework, turn the television off at night

or the video game. the president said the same thing and i commend him for that. but he's talking to all of us about personal responsibility and doing the right thing. and i will yield back quickly, judge, but it may be that the gentleman from new york, chairman of the ways and means committee wishes his boss, the speaker of this house, would ask him to temporarily step aside while this investigation was ongoing, maybe he doesn't want to do it himself. he is a world war ii veteran, a korean war veteran, in fact a hero. i read part of his book. he has been -- he is a likeable individual without question. you can understand how he keeps getting re-elected by such overwhelming majorities. but as a sold year and hero --

soldier, he may feel gosh, i don't wish to step aside but i wish my boss would tell me to step aside. there are two people who have the responsibility and i'm glad you brought that up. harry truman, back in 1948 who says, hey, the buck stops on my desk. well, the buck stops on the speaker of the house of representatives' desk in regards to this issue. i yield back. mr. carter: i would like to recognize my good friend and fellow former judge, representative gohmert from texas, and use as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. gohmert: i appreciate my friend, former judge from texas in pointing out some of the problems that are being created by the inaction. and i know this was touched onp

earlier, but "new york post" article,ed torial dated september 2 this year talking about some of the hypocrisy here with this bill and provisions that were added coming out of the ways and means committee. and i think it's important for people to understand also that chairman rangel doesn't get to act by himself. the majority party that controls the ways and means committee has authority to overrule the chairman. they got enough members on their side to overrule the chairman and let him know there's a problem. there is a responsibility for the members of those committees. they were elected by their constituents to come up here and

do the right thing. and not be hypocrites on any issue. and so i hope we won't have that experience. but when you look at some of the things this article points out like the fact, it says in the editorial, in fact the bill -- the provisions that were added to this health care bill increases fines, in some cases, for honest mistakes, this expert added, even punishing those who fail to alert the i.r.s. to possible tax exemptions, bar the i.r.s. from waiving penalties on taxpayers who erred in good faith. the article talks about the provisions -- it says here that would prevent the i.r.s. from waiving punishment in cases

where tax officials thought the penalty was clearly excessive and also adds under another provision, the i.r.s. would require that taxpayers self-report areas where they may have gone over the line seeking tax advantages. and if they fail to self-report and problems are not found, the tax penalties would skyrocket. as this article says, the i.r.s. becomes judge, jury and executioner and it doubles the fine against the taxpayer from 20% of the underpayment to 40%. and so there is a problem here. and with regard to the issue of race, i cannot tell you how much i look forward to the day when there is not an application in this country that has a provision for race, because it

doesn't matter. people don't care. we finally experienced the drain that dr. martin luther king junior talked about when we're judged by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin. that's the way it's supposed to be. and, in fact, i've got recently called racist by information -- i was told by one reporter, who called over the posey bill that does something very simple and i know there are people out there conservatives, maybe radicals

the bill simply says beginning in 2012, you have to show you're qualified.

all of a sudden, i start getting calls, i got mentioned in "doonsberry" by name. they're mentioning language, one reporter says she got it from a high source at the white house, i was trying to delegitimize the president. when i recommended the reporter read the bill and she did, we didn't hear any more about it. then i've also gotten all kinds of information, apparently this information, supposedly some of it came from the white house, they've branded me a racist. i think it's appropriate to note, with my apologies to the texas former senator phil gramm, who i really appreciate his politics, i liked alan keyes better in 1996. i voted for keyes for president in 1996, and somebody's mentioned that he doesn't happen to be white. i didn't care. i liked his politics.

race didn't matter. here to have sources here in washington, trying to brand people racist, that has no application whatsoever. that's one example. i'll tell you another example is, i came down here on the floor and raised the issue with the chairman of the budget over the justice department if, since he recused himself two years ago over the budget process for the justice department, if it wouldn't be appropriate to do that now he said two years ago that he was recusing himself, would step aside and not hand they will budget for the justice department while he was being investigated. there's no indications that that investigation has ended. and yet this time, there was no stepping aside. my understanding was, one reporter that asked for a comment from me, said they

didn't think it was a big story like they did two yearing before when he did step aside because he had said he wasn't actually going to preside over the f.b.i.'s budget, the people that were investigationing him. so it was ok -- investigating him. so it was ok to preside over the budget for the bosses of the finn, the justice department but not ok to supervise the f.b.i. budget? i mean, we want to talk about the appearance of a problem, good grief. i mean, can you imagine anyone who being a judge over a case, and they are going to rule or preside over a case of somebody that gets to cut off their funds if they don't like what the judge does? i mean, that's just absurd.

anybody would look and go, there's an appearance of a problem here. and it destroys the reputation of this body. but here again, it was the president who has continued to demand that americans listen and he has had town halls, listen to me, and he's had some listening sessions where they ship in people and it appears that some of them even have prepared questions to ask him that were given to him, not exactly listening to the people if you tell them what questions to ask. but in any event, we keep being told we have to listen because the president has a plan and the bill that we've had, we discussed, because that's what's in front of us, we're told if -- if you like your insurance you get to keep it, yet page 16 of the bill that we're given says, your insurance policy changes at

all, any term or condition, you lose it. then that doesn't seem to be all that honest of an approach. which to give the benefit of the doubt, apparently just mean he is didn't read it. but now, the president wants to come in here and talk to us again, because apparently we haven't been listening well enough, so he wanted to come speak, he gets the invitation, he's going to talk to us about health care. you know what? there was another president that did the same thing on september 22 of 1993 because he didn't think that americans were listening good enough about what he had to say about health care. so he had a joint session and president clinton told us in america, told people in this room, that they needed to listen and do what he was saying about health care reform and so here we are, you know, all these years later, now we're going to have to listen

again. september 9, it's actually 13 days short of where president clinton was when he came and started telling people about it, but there is a problem when you don't listen to other people. and some of us have gotten an earful out there listening. i love the comment of one of my constituent, he's telling us there are 45 million or 46 million don't have insurance. 15% of americans don't have insurance. so there's a problem. you don't throw out the whole system to change that. in fact, one constituent said, look, when my icemaker broke, i didn't remodel the whole kitchen. and i think when you listen to americans across the country, it's amazing the wisdom you get. i think it is a problem in this body when all we do is talk and we don't listen. i'll tell you, i know my

friends, and madam speaker, that we've all gotten an earful over august, i loved it. i enjoyed hearing what people had to say. they've given a lot of thought. this is what we need to do, listen, and some great points have been made. we need to preserve the appearance of propriety and protect against the appearance of impropriety and that appearance is all over here and some of the same people who were refusing to do anything about an appearance of impropriety are the same people we listened to my first two years, rightfully talk about a problem when there's an appearance of impropriety. it's high time they went back and listened to themselves four years ago and do what they said four years ago and quit ignoring the damage that's being done to this body when there's important business that needs to be done. i would also encourage those same people who say that people

on this side have no answers, if they would read a little bit, listen a little bit, they'd find out there are all kinds of proposals, they're just caught up in trying to fight against reform that would fix the appearance of impropriety that they're not actually doing the business this body ought to be doing. with that, i yield back to my friend. mr. carter: reclaiming my time, i see another friend from texas is here. as he approaches the mic, iveed like to point out that as i've been talking about these issues, this is not just about chairman rangel, i talked about john murtha, mollohan, pete visclosky, these are issues before the ethics committee, or the justice department in some form of fashion. this is -- we're clearly saying we have apeencheses that are concerning us at every -- appearances that are concerning us at every level my good friend, dr. burgess of texas,

is here. i'm going to yield him such time as he may consume. i think we've got about five minutes left. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i don't know that i'll use the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carter: oh, it has? i thought you told me 15 minutes. sorry. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. meek, for half of the remaining time until midnight. mr. meek: thank you so much, madam speaker. it's an honor to be before the house once again as many members of the house know that we've had an opportunity to go back not only to our districts but to our states, to deal with our issues and our districts -- in our districts and also talk to a number of our stits. i wanted to come before the

house tonight with some of my colleagues to talk about some of the main issues discussed in the break. as you know, when i come to the floor, i always like to bring to the attention of the hughes, so that we'll never forget we do have men and women in harm's way. as of september 8, 1:30 p.m. today, the total american military deaths in iraq is 4, 341, wounded in action, returned back to duty is 17,623. wounded in action, did not return to duty is 3,872. and i think it's very important to not only have that in congressional record but also for all of us here that are passing not only policy but also appropriations, make sure we remember the families and those individuals that continue to serve to allow us to salute

under one flag so as policymakers we have to pay close attention. i come to the floor tonight because i believe that now more than ever, since i've been here for seven years, that we need leadership, not only in this house but in the congress in general. that's including the senate. i think when we look at this issue of health care, there's been a lot said by many people, but there are only 535-something-odd people in this country, including the president of the united states and members of his cabinet, that are going to have to implement and provide this leadership on behalf of a country that needs people to man up and woman up and leader up and stop just saying, well, we shouldn't do anything about health care because every man and woman for themselves. you know, that's not the american spirit. it doesn't -- it pushes against logic because when you look at

rising health care costs, when you're looking at small business men and women that are having issues of being able to provide health care for themselves, leave alone the employees that they have, at affordable rate, when their employees are able to have health care that they can afford for their families, it's one thing to have health care, it's another thing to be able to afford it. i brought a couple of personal testimonies from my state that i think it's important for people to pay very close attention to. tomorrow night we know that this room will -- this chamber will be filled with policymakers. we'll have a number of the president's cabinet here and the president will walk down this center aisle like other presidents have done in the past. americans will definitely tune in the world will tune in to see if we're willing to be able to do what we must do to be able to keep this country

competitive. this is bigger than just, you know, ideology or a public plan or no plan at all or i'm going to score political points because it's an issue that's a landmark piece of legislation and only leaders can play in that room. so i'm going to stand on the outside and throw rocks at the building and break as much glass as i can an hopefully i confuse people enough that when they're confused they'll say, no, i don't necessarily think we need to do, carry out, carry through this health care issue. i want to know where -- who is hiding and who's running around here in the dark saying that, oh, let's bring this thing up of health care. hello. the whole 2008 election was based on health care. some issues some members

thought would come up, immigration reform, the war would play a more substantial role, qualifications of how long you serve will play a major role, no it was health care. it was democrats and republicans and independents and first-time voters voting for hope and just believing this time that something good will come out of their vote. now i'm going to tell you something, and i, you know, i'm from florida, i'm from one of those states that over 3,600 floridians lose their health care every week. every week. and it's kind of good for me to be here in washington, d.c. along with my colleagues, all of them, and we all have health care. there's no urgency on our side. oh, wow, we don't -- there are no letter that are written by member os of congress saying, oh, woe is my co-payment. oh, my goodness the premiums have gone up. i can't afford it.

i've been denied as a member of congress of an operation that i desperately need or a family member. that doesn't happen in our world. doesn't happen in the house, doesn't happen in the senate. but it definitely happens in america. it happens to floridians that show up at town hall meetings, i had constituents saying, i'd love to come to your town hall meeting but i'm not into the whole bodily harm thing if i come. that's something else we have to pay attention to. so i think it's very, very important for those of us who came to congress make sure that it wasn't -- that our representation and our presence here is about representing people. people that are counting on us to do the right thing. people that are making sure that they don't find themselves in a situation to where that, well, i'm going to vote for my member of congress so he or she can have health care and i'll

sit by and be part of the debate over a public plan or nonpublic plan. hello. we have public right now that are insured in the state of florida, you have 20% of the individuals that are under the age of 65 that are uninsured. guess what, ladies and gentlemen. 80% of us that have health insurance are paying more every year because of the 20%. people want to talk about, somebody has to do this, this is not guaranteed, you know what, when you show up and make that phone call and find out your child is sick or you find out that your husband now has to get that operation that you didn't -- weren't able to tackle every time you have breakfast but now this ache in his side has become a situation that now you have to deal with and now you're spending $3,000 of a co-pay that you don't have already, we can't prioritize it then and say, oh, i care about health care.

so i wanted to come tonight with my colleagues and i see that they have joined me, because i did talk with my neighboring colleague in florida, chairwoman wasserman schultz, about the fact that we have to come back to the floor even though we have families, we have leadership positions in the house, we have major pieces of legislation that's moving through our committees, to come back here in the middle of the night like we did when we beat back the forces who wanted to privatize social security. . think about it if we listened to those voices. hello again. not just people over the age of 65, but a lot of young people that would have taken their money and put it on unregulated

wall street and would have even lost their social security benefits. i'm here to tell you that i look forward to coming back to the floor with my colleagues to talk about this issue of health care. and we know the president will come tomorrow and will in his best effort try to bring republicans and democrats and the two independents that serve in the senate together to bring about quality health care on behalf of all americans. and when we talk about health care, i am talking about every person that lives in the united states of america. this will affect you. if you're insured, this will affect you. and it will affect you hopefully in a positive way, because every time you pay a premium it's higher, co-pay, it's higher. and i'll close with this and yield to my colleagues that i

had a young lady call my office and i pick up the phone from time to time when it's ringing and she was like, well, congressman, i just want to tell you that i'm against the public plan. i said, what are you against. tell me a little bit about it. i wasn't trying to be intimidating and saying go into sections and chapters. well, i don't know if i want the government in the business of health care. that sounds like something that might have been said on the radio, not necessarily something -- i felt that i filled her because i didn't do what i was supposed to do as a member of congress and member of the ways and means committee, if there is another plan that will bring the private insurance companies costs down that they are charging each and every one of us, then we will find ourselves in a better situation.

but no one has a plan that will bring that cost down as a public plan will. as i close, u.s. postal service is a public plan, last i checked. if the u.s. postal service went out of business tomorrow, you thinks -- you think they're complaining about the price of a stamp now, you wait until you allow the private sector to run by itself that has so much broad application and so many people has to deal with. medicare, last time i checked rg public plan over the age of 65. the public plan is far more conservative than that plan because regardless of what your income may be or what it may not be, you're eligible for it. this public plan will be paid for with just premiums and not taxpayer dollars. am i one of these members that, without the public plan, i don't know if i could vote for this. i'm saying if there's nothing

else there, and i do mean nothing else there, that will bring down the cost of health care forever day floridians and americans, then the public plan is the option to be able to deal with those issues and to be able to make sure we make health care affordable. members of congress, we don't have a problem. we have health care. and well -- we will have health care and we will not be denied an operation and we will not wait in long lines. so i want to make sure that every american, regardless of your party affiliation, regardless of the fact whether you ever voted in your life to pay attention to what i'm saying. it's not about us that are here, we're fine. it's about you and your family. ms. wasserman schultz. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. meek from florida. it's great to be back here in the 30-something working group.

we've reconvened. your birthday was the other day and mine is in two weeks and we are a little bit past 30-something. i would like to say we are the somethings in 30-something. we have been reconvened by you under your chairmanship of this working gupe because yet again, it is time to make sure that we can be clear and straight and direct with the american people. this is the season now of hard bahraining and hard choices and we have the opportunity for the first time in our lifetime and the lifetime of our generation to really, finally achieve comprehensive health care reform. and what does that mean, because that's a term that has been thrown around for weeks and weeks now that we have gotten to the point where most peoples's

eyes glaze over and they begin to tune out. but it's to their peril that people tune out this debate and this discussion, because we have the best opportunity for reform than we've had in american history. we have brought health care reform the furtherest that it has ever been brought. five of six house and senate committees have passed legislation reforming the health care system, to do what? to ensure that never again an insurance company will be able to drop you or deny you coverage based on a pre-existing condition, never again will your insurance coverage be tied to your job instead of to you. it will be portable. so whatever decisions will be made to continue to employ you or move on to another job, that health care will be attached to

you. never again will we have to deal with health care-related bankruptcy or death as a result not having health insurance, both of which happen now, because people are facing catastrophic illness and don't have catastrophic health insurance and have to wait until they are so sick and use the most expensive ways of getting their health care treatment whether it's the emergency room or because they are so sick, they have much more significant costs to their health care and as a result, they are bankrupted directly as a result of their health care problems. there were 1,210 health care-related bankruptcy mr. meek, in my district last year. we have the numbers forever district. 1,210 individuals went bankrupt because of their health care problem. families in the u.s.a. talk about how we have six health

care-related deaths in florida directly attributeable to the fact that people did not have health insurance. and how do they come to that conclusion? because if you don't have health insurance, if you have a basic health care problem, a simple health care problem, you can't afford to go to the doctor so you get sicker and sicker until one day some folks just die because they become so sick that they can't get the problem taken care of and then the problem wheams them. even when they are able to access emergency care. so directly attributing death to the lack of health care coverage. in 2009 in america, that is just unconnable. the last few weeks i have spent a lot of time in my district going around and speaking to small business owners and individuals who either have pre-existing conditions or face high health care insurance premiums and they are

frustrated. they say it's long past time that we get a handle on these costs. but what is the response on the other side? you know, there are a lot of folks that are friends of ours on the other side of the aisle who are saying that they're for reform that they support health care reform but just don't like the -- this is the nice version -- they don't like the direction that we're taking it. they don't want socialized medicine or gofert takeover of health care or the government gets between you and health care. let me read you this passage, my colleagues and see what you think about this expression of sentment. and if you don't do this and this is a voice on a record urging listeners to write their members of congress and asking them to oppose this legislation and if you don't do this and if i don't do it, one of these days we are going to be telling our children and children's children what it was like in america when

men were free. does that sound familiar? it sounds like what our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing to scare people, particularly senior citizens into believing that somehow they will be giving up their freedom if we pass health care reform. well, actually that was ronald reagan back in 1961 when he was trying to scare seniors and scare doctors and americans into believing that somehow medicare was going to be the end of the health care system and health care coverage as they knew it. and now, it would be to any of our peril if we went home and suggested that people be separated from their medicare, because it's been one of the most successful health care programs in american history covering seniors who would vice president certainly died if not for having that health care coverage. and we have got to make sure that we have this discussion and this debate in a responsible manner.

we're not going to get in between you and your doctor -- americans and their doctor. on the contrary. we want to make sure that the people who are between you and your doctor, which are the insurance company bureaucrats who are looking more at the bottom line than they are in making sure you are staying healthy, that they are moved aside and we can have health care reform and health care coverage that ensures that people stay healthy, get the access to health care that they and their health care provider decide is appropriate, bring down the cost of health care and make sure that we force, especially in some of the communities not that you and i represent, but in the places in this country where there is maybe one or two private plans and very little competition so they can charge whatever they want, include whatever they want in those policies, that side by side with the private plans is a public option that keeps those private plans honest and forces

them to be more innovative in order to hold on to those customers, provide coverage that is more comprehensive and more affordable. i yield to the gentleman for your thoughts, because you have a leader on the house energy and commerce committee. mr. murphy: i thank representative meek for convening us. here's how i look at this issue of the public option. it has gotten a lot more attention in the debate than it takes up in the bill. there are a lot of important pieces to this health care reform bill. i have faith in my constituents. i think if we give them choice, they're going to make the right choice for them and for their family. and just like in countries in europe where you may only have one choice, you got to buy and take public insurance, in this country, we also have only one choice as well, you have to take private insurance. and this notion that we shouldn't give our constituents

the choice up to them as to whether they want to stay on their private plan or for a variety of reasons, they think it might be better to be on a publicly-offered plan, i think that shows a lack of faith in the american people. and i think if it's good enough forever single member of congress, if it's good enough forever federal employee and state employee in this country, if it's good enough for our veterans, sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines, every single individual in this country over 65, maybe our constituents should have a choice of whether it's good enough for them or not. for me, it comes down to choice. and representative wasserman schultz, you mentioned about the lack of choice. if you're working, odds are you may have one choice, two choices, maybe three choices. if you live in a state like connecticut, we have one insurer that covers over 50% of the

people in our state. that 50% of the states in this nation one insurer has half the market. 70% has two insurers that covers 75% of the market. there's not enough choice out there as it stands right now. i have faith that my constituents will be able to make the right choice. and for all the people that say, well, the government can't run anything, but the public option is going to run private insurers out of business, those arguments don't work together, because if the government can't run anything, they can't run a government plan, but it should be up to people. that's how you put competition back into a very broken marketplace. to me, the one theme that i was home this august as it has been throughout the time i have been doing this job that has united the people who support this specific proposal and the people who are undecided and people who

don't like it is cost. everybody agrees that the system costs too much right now. i mean over and over again, i heard the same story that you, mr. meek, mr. ryan heard, business owners talking about a 20% increase last year in health insurance premiums. individuals looking down the barrel of 30% increase of our major insurer's plan. employees having seen wage increases be put off year after year because employers are taking the extra money they are making and putting it to insurance premiums. guess what? the congressional budget office, which republicans and democrats alike hate because it is too nonpartisan, that budget office which guides our decisions here says the public option is going to save our system $100 billion because it will offer it cheaper to people and put pressure on the private insurers to bring

their costs down. so if we really care about costs, this has to be part of the discussion. there are a lot of things we can do here. we will talk about the insurance exchange, tax credits we are going to give to businesses to have them offer insurance to their employees. but when all is said and done, we should be keeping every possible tool in the tool box that can bring costs down. that's one of the things amongst many that can unite us in this building, in this chamber and throughout this country. and i think, mr. ryan that i found when i was home, when you got beyond the shouting, the rhetoric talking points, there is a lot more that united us here and i think our job here as we hit that hour is to distill down to something that we can be proud of when he get home. .

mr. ryan: one thing is everyone i talked to in august, the slovak clans, the italian-american festival, every single time, the people understand they are paying for all these uninsured people. they get it and they know the $1,800 increase next year is because another 50 million people within going -- will be going to the emergency room. one thing we need to remember when we're talking to seniors about medicare, we have this population, especially in the industrial midwest, where people are 55, 60 years old, lost their job, lost their insurance, they're still work bug their employer is not going to pay for their insurance anymore. we have a very unhealthy segment of our population going into the medicare program and so if you're living in northeast ohio, if you're 55 or

60 years old, you lose your health care a lot of people will saying to themselves, i'm going to wait until i get into medicare to get my heart surgery. i'm going to wait until i get into medicare for you name it. so from 60 to medicare age a lot of things go wrong that you probably could have managed better. so we have this very unhealthy population going into the medicare program. so what our seniors need to know, because our friends on the other side who don't want any health care reform at all, they're going to cut medicare. it's nice to see some republicans stand up and have concern about medicare because newt gingrich and grover norquist were talking about letting it wither on the vine but it's going to save medicare money if we have this 550, 05 -- 50, 55, 60-year-old

population getting the manageable care so they don't say, i'm going to wait until i'm in medicare, then you go into medicare and it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars more. that's what's hurting our medicare system now. i yield to my friend. ms. wasserman schultz: just to continue your point to the next logical step, shifting the care system from a sick care system, which it is now to a wellness system, to ensure people get their checkups before they get sick will prevent the catastrophic, maybe not completely plevpbt catastrophic illness but stave off chronic and catastrophic illness so the actual health care that people go and get is less expensive health care is preventive based health care and we'll have a generally healthier population and i'll add to that, the

description that you provided of 60 to 65-year-olds, there are many people in that category and you can extend it actually down to about 50, people who are sort of past their quality working years, but are still -- and should be retiring, maybe continuing to work and wearing themselves down is going to actually make them more sick, but because they have pre-existing conditions and they are not yet medicare eligible and the only insurance that many of them have is tied to their job, they're anchored to those jobs. my own mom is one of those individuals. she has a pre-existing condition she gets her insurance coverage through work, she's 63 years ole, she's not medicare eligible yet. she has to continue to work full-time in order to keep coverage. there are countless stories like that in america.

she's the mother of a member of congress. just to show you people are bandying about how privileged we are. we have good coverage, decent coverage, but basic coverage. and our family members are just like any other family members across america. we all can list out countless examples of people who would benefit from comprehensive health care coverage. before i yield to the gentleman, i want to go back to our friends on the other side of the aisle because, you know, it's been frustrating to me as i've debated and i'm sure each of you has debated, colleagues of ours on the other side of the aisle on the subject over the last few week, hear them say they're for reform. because frankly i don't think that passes the smell test. they were in charge here for 12 years. the last eight, they were in charge of everything. and they had the opportunity. the ball was in their court.

they certainly could have taken the ball and run with it. but health care reform does not -- was not a priority for them, it never has been and it isn't now. it's disingenuous for them to suggest they're for reform, but not the reform they're propose -- that we're proposing. if they were for reform, they could have gotten it done. the reform they offered the american people was a lame prescription drug part d program for medicare that left a giant doughnut hole that tens of thousands of senior citizens are falling into that our health care reform proposal would would fill and make sure people swront to decide not taking their medicine once they fall into it and focus on getting people well and keeping them well instead of spiraling ever downward into a more sickry state. >> let me add to that that for all the talk we've heard on

this floor about fiscal responsibility, with respect to health care and with respect to the overall budget, when that bill came up for debate, when they made their one to ray into health care, a bill -- their one foray into health care, they didn't pay for a dime of it. they borrowed every cent in order to fund that medicare prescription drug benefit. you want to talk about the things that added to the deficit that barack obama inherited, right at the top of that list is the only major effort that the republican house and republican senate made to health care. not only when they constructed the medicare benefit did they get it wrong, but for all of their talk about making sure that this health care bill is deficit neutral, which is a commitment from this president and the house and from the senate, when they had to the opportunity to do it they borrowed every single dime to do health care reform. >> it may sound good to say if we just fix this or fix that, we'll be ok.

the problem we have now is we have this patchwork system that we've just been constantly patching up and it's not addressing one of the main problems and that's we've got all of these uninsured people. some people say it's 10 million, some say 50 million, it's probably somewhere in between. the bottom line is, mr. meek, all these people are going to the emergency room. that makes no sense. to anybody. so you go in with your insurance card, you're going -- you're paying for the person walking in there. what we're asking people to do is for people now using the emergency room as their primary care doctor, that they'll have to pay something now. they'll have skin in the game. they'll have a co-pay a premium, you're going to get something out of them. that's how we're going to help build this new system. is by having people who are now getting something for nothing will have to pay and have skin

in the game and take money out of their own pocket, mr. meek, and pay for their health care. and that will help everybody. i yield to my friend from florida. mr. meek: it's just so good to see mr. murphy and you and ms. wasserman schultz here back on the floor again, and the fact that some of the arguments that you hear that, i don't think we're here for some big, let's build the government even more. let's go out and our -- the reason why we're here is to make sure the government gets bigger and more control, that's what we ran for. no. we're here because we care about the people that sent us here. i said it earlier when i was here on the floor, just me at the top of this hour, when i said, you know something? no one came up to me and said, congressman, i woke up at 7:00

a.m. voting for representation, i'm so happy to send you, your wife and two kids to washington so you can have health care i will never have. and the bottom line is, i'm going to put these testimonials on my website some people have emailed to me and some i got from my town hall meeting. i'm look at robert from florida, he said as a self-employed person, i'm not eligible for group coverage. therefore i must pay $4,000 a year for my family of four, i have deductibles up to $7,000 before anything gets covered. in this current economy my income is greatly reduced but i cannot change for a less expensive plan until the month open enrollment comes around. that's almost a year away. it's nuts. in a nutshell, health care could well bankrupt me and even without a medical catastrophic

event taking place. and i'm trying to figure out what will the new congress and president do for me? that was his email to me as a congressman. i'm not his congressman but he just reaching out to members of congress and the bottom line is, there are real people out there dealing with this. mr. ryan you make so much sense when you say folks walk through, i know that's hard for you to believe, me saying that, walk through the doors of an emergency room getting care, you watch the public hospitals going under. think about it. they're reducing the staff, i was in daytona at a labor day picnic, a lady came up to me, my mother is in a public hospital there, in volusia county, we have to take turns being in the room with her because of the staff cuts that are there. this is all coming from uncompensated health care that's driving up the cost, not

only for public hospitals and private hospitals but also driving up the costs for us who pay premiums and co-pays and all those things. i would say this also to my friends that live in rural communities. i heard you talk about ohio, and you know, of course we can all talk about our states, but i can tell you this, in rural communities right now, in this bill we incentivize doctors to stay in those communities. they are communities in need and they don't have specialists there. we look at addressing the disparities as it relates to rural america. right now we have individuals that have to drive for miles and miles and miles, that's not ok. especially when you're in need of care. when we look at this whole comprehensive piece, we're looking at something that's going to bring about better coverage for all americans, make sure that those of us that have insurance, that we bring our costs down. making sure that people who have pre-existing or family

conditions, god forbid this gentleman from bradenton, one of his family members, discovered his daughter has some sort of illness, she needs operation after operation that insurance he has, which is not as good as mine, runs out, he's on his own. by himself. and folks can't say, well that's his personal problem. no that's going to be my problem too and it's going to be the individual's problem who has health care because because he or she is going to pay for the fact that he can't get coverage and he works and he he supplies, he provides, he's a businessperson and he just wants to insure his family. mr. ryan, i want to -- i'm going to say this and i'm not going to say anything else in this hour, but we yield back when that time comes 10 minutes after the hour, i will tell you this, that those of us in this chamber that know better, because all while the while i was listening to people