up to capitol hill and shake them down for $80 billion, i would think that john mccain's naive comment was over the top. i strongly believe corporations can do this lobbying and should also have the right to run advertisements before an election. guest: fair enough. that is the argument that they are into lobbying, so why not go all the way? that is what the court will decide. host: we're going into an election year and this case could have a big effect on the process of elections. when will we know? guest: i think it is one of the reasons they scheduled it early, before the election in your

kicks in. december is a good guess. my guess is two or three months. someone writes an opinion, someone writes a dissent. host: thanks for being with us to explain the implications. thank you for being with us on this thursday morning. it is time to go to the house for live coverage. it is considering the chesapeake bay the wgate ways. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] . .

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

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, dean george warrener, trin dei cathedral, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, we meet in a challenging moment of your history. we cannot control all that may

endanger us, but we can choose our behavior. and the example we set as leaders. facing overwhelming challenges, the signers of our declaration of independence pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. in romans paul ii encourages us out to outdo one another in showing honor. please send your holy spirit among us, strengthening our vision and courage to do right, especially when no one is watching. not for just this great house but for all levels of government, for all corporations, institutions and organizations, for financial, industrial, commercial, academic, military, and including our religious and altruistic communities. that our beloved country may

continue to be a beacon of light to a troubled world and that government for, by and of the people shall not perish from the face of this earth. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the chamber her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from florida, congressman klein. mr. klein: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania, congressman altmire, is recognized for one minute. mr. altmire: madam speaker, it's my great honor to welcome

the very reverend dean george werner who serves as the guest chaplain for the united states house of representatives. as the dean emeritus as the historic trinity cathedral in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, dean werner has earned a space in the hearts of the people of pennsylvania. a well-known volunteer and leader in the community dean werner is involved in countless civic organizations, including the ireland institute of pittsburgh, the st. margaret's foundation, the university of pittsburgh's medical center, just to name a few. and it's altogether fitting that by opening up today's house session in prayer, dean werner is the first person to stand at that center podium where president obama stood last night to talk about the need for health care reform because dean werner has literally made a career out of advocating for fairness for all of our citizens and helping those less fortunate.

my colleagues, it's my distinct honor and privilege to welcome to the house today my good friend, dean george werner. the speaker: the chair will -- the chair will entertain up to five further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, last night the american people and many in this chamber listened intently as president obama made the case for major reform of our health care system. but i must admit i was dismayed, like a growing number of americans over the fact what the president said and what the democratic leadership in congress has already done in the form of h.r. 3200 simply doesn't add up. we all remember the old saying that if it's too good to be true it probably is. last night the president promised a plan that would insure more people, provide better coverage and would cost

less money. however, missing from that equation is one basic question, how are we really going to pay for all of this? sadly, that's the $900 billion question. and when the president said that he won't sign a bill into law that adds one dime to the deficit, what he failed to say is this, you, the american people, are going to pay for these changes with more taxes and with cuts to popular perhaps like medicare. republicans want to take this president at his word, but it would help if the details and the numbers added up with the rhetoric. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. boren: i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. boren: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of an influential oklahoma publication, the mccarville report, and to acknowledge its citizen,

oklahoman mike mccarville. mike has spent as entire professional life in the field of journalism. throughout his 35-year career, mike has written or contributed to almost every notable oklahoma newspaper. however, it has been the very popular mccarville report that has solidified his influence in oklahoma politics and culture. the mccarville report provides daily insight into the policy positions and issues that face oklahoma's elected officials. it is an important resource to me and to thousands of oklahomans that read it every day. congratulations, mike, on 30 years of providing oklahomans with the mccarville report, your hard work does not go unnoticed. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. fleming: i request unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. fleming: mr. speaker, the president's speak in his chamber last -- in this chamber last night was the 28th speech about the same old tired plan, and it totally ignored the facts. rhetoric and empty promises are not going to solve the health care challenges americans face. americans have spoken against the same proposals. americans want health care reform that will not expand government intrusion into health care or undermine what works in our health care system today. contrary to the president's claim that republicans have no solutions, i support h.r. 3400, the republican solution, health reform that will expand coverage to those who need it regardless of pre-existing conditions. it also expands insurance pools across state lines and encourages young healthy people to buy insurance to bring down costs for everyone. individuals and small businesses can be encouraged to ban together to purchase group health coverage for themselves

or their employees and we can save billions by limiting frivolous lawsuits against physicians that have driven many out of business altogether. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. klein: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. klein: thank you, mr. speaker. on friday we mark a sober anniversary in the history of our nation, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001. as time has passed, our resolve has not faltered. we remain committed to rooting out terror and evil wherever it may hide and protecting our homeland against all who threaten our way of life. i'm proud because of legs we passed here in -- legislation we passed here in congress and the president signed into law, september 11 is now a day of national service and remembrance. i encourage all americans to spend time giving back to their communities, to honor the spirit of service that unified our country and the world in the aftermath of the 9/11

attacks. especially in these turbulent times, it's important to remember that no matter what our political party or what other things may divide us, we are all americans and we stand together in solemn reflection and steadfast commitment that we will never forget the innocent lives lost that day. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i spent the last month listening to my constituents throughout all eight counties of my district in ohio about health care. whether talking to my health care advisory committee, meeting with senior citizens, listening to soccer moms on the soccer field or hosting a live town hall meeting, i heard loud and clear the concerns of the citizens of my district. the american people are concerned about the proposed government-run option and the uncertainty of this bill. they want lower health care costs and are worried about maintaining their doctor-patient relationship. my father was a doctor and

mother was a nurse and families across ohio and our nation deserves a health care system that maintains quality, lowers costs and improves access. mr. speaker, it's time for congress to listen to the american people and work together to provide real solutions for these issues. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise? ms. mccollum: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, i rise to honor the life and public service of north st. paul richard crittenton who will be laid to rest tomorrow. on monday morning he was responding to a domestic dispute call. he was killed protecting a woman from a man who had repeatedly abused her. north st. paul is a wonderful community of 11,000 people where i raised my children and served on the city council. to lose an officer in the line of duty is a tragedy for every

resident, it's a tragedy for all of us. on behalf of my constituents and all minnesotans i extend our prayers and deepest sympathies to his wife, christine, their children, grandchildren. their loss is tremendous. to the north st. paul officials and residents and especially the members of the police department i extend my condolences at this time of great pain and loss. officer crittenton gave the ultimate sacrifice, his life, in the line of duty. his service as a peace officer was always respected. but his courage and sacrifice makes him a hero who shall be remembered and honored always. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. murphy: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, last night the president spoke about health care and despite what some may portray as big rifts, there is much room for agreement. so i say we must work on these

principles to get health care done. everyone should have the choice to purchase in groups, purchase across the nation competitively, the choice to have your plan portable and permanent across jobs. the choice to purchase a basic plan that covers emergency and hospital care. the president used the analogy of buying car insurance, let's keep in mind with auto insurance can you buy a very basic liability plan and add to it if you choose. keep health insurance very basic and you keep it affordable. there should be no choice to cut coverage because a person is sick or was sick at one time. there should be be no choice to have plans on hospitals that tolerate waste, fraud, and inefficientcy. with these changes we can make health care more affordable w these chains we can supplement payments for lower cost, high quality health insurance for those who cannot afford it and does not have to include the government running an insurance company. there is lots of aroom for agreement. let's solve this problem for america. that's good medicine. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. we in this house of representatives have the opportunity to participate and help shape history. last night during the joint session president obama was part of that great train of history of our nation. he spoke in the great tradition of teddy roosevelt who first spoke about national health care and eleanor roosevelt who talked about it, harry truman who spoke 60 years ago from this well about that need and this nation. he spoke in the great tradition of john kennedy and lyndon johnson who saw that medicaid and medicare were passed in 1965. i was very, very proud to be part of this body last night and i'll be even prouder when a vote comes up. over the speaker's rostrum engraved in stone is a quote from daniel webster, let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, 3wil8d on its institutions, plote all its great interest, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.

daniel webster's calling to us to heed barack obama's call to pass national health care in the great tradition of american leaders and do something worthy to be remembered. i look forward to that opportunity. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: to address the house for one minute. i ask unanimous consent to rend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. olson: mr. speaker, this past tuesday the review of u.s. human space flight plans committee released the options they have provided the obama administration regarding the future of our nation's human space flight program. their opening sentence says it all. the u.s. human space flight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. two prior congresses and two presidential administrations have endorsed the course nasa's on, but without providing the necessary funding.

this congress, this congress needs to meet the commitment to our nation's space agency. the work being done benefits science, education, and our economy. we have stood on this floor and spent money bailing out the past. it's time we reinvest in our future. the achievement of the men and women of america's space program cannot continue to be received with empty promises and constant second-guessing. we have been the world's leader in human space flight for nearly 50 years. we must always be so. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speak pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. baca: last night a joint session of congress, president obama urged congress that now is the time to deliver health care. we heard it loud and clear. but what we also heard was a remark that was disrespectful to

this house and the american people serving here in the united states congress. access to adequate health care should be a right not a privilege for those who can afford it. i stand here voicing the concern of the 217 uninsured in my district. no parent should have to worry about paying for a mortgage or expenses for health care insurance. no senior citizen should retire and have to balance by paying for doctors visits or paying for groceries. no one should be denied health care because a pre-existing condition. that is not right. this is un-american. i urge my colleagues to be players in this debate and not just stand by and watch and be critics. working together we can make a difference. as the president stated, we did come not to fear the future, we came here to shape it. let's get health care reform right now. i ask all of us to work together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. arcuri: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 726 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 106, house resolution 726. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 965, to amend the chesapeake bay initiative act of 1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. two, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution if offered by representative bishop of utah or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order against those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and three, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one hour. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. all time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house

resolution 726. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, house resolution 726 provides for consideration of h.r. 965, the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network continuing authorization act. i want to recognize my colleague from maryland, mr. john sarbanes, for his leadership on this issue. he has worked diligently in a bipartisan fashion to protect the chesapeake bay so it remains a vibrant recreational and economic network. h.r. 965 will continue the important restoration and conservation of the chesapeake bay watershed by permanently authorizing the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network. the chesapeake bay is our nation's largest estuary. many people often think of the bay as only part of maryland and virginia, but the bay's watershed covers 64,000 square miles in five states and the

district of columbia. in fact, the water shed's most northern port or what we in upstate new york call the starting point extends into a significant portion of my congressional district in the village ofp cooperstown. as a rufflet its size and location, the chesapeake bay has played an important role in our country's history. from early settlement and commerce to early battles and development and recreational uses. it truly is worthy of preservation both for its natural beauty and impact on our nation's culture and economy. the chesapeake bay network is a comprehensive protection program for the bay. the program's authorized serve to identify, conserve, restore, and interpret the natural, historical, cultural, and recreational resources within the water shed. these programs also educate local communities on the significant sights in the region and how their community impacts the overall health of the pay. this law requires a full matching requirement for grants awarded by the national park

service to state and local agencies and not-for-profit corporations and organizations for such projects. the result aring network is a system of over 150 parks, museums, historic communities, scenic roadways, water trails, and water access points located within the vast chesapeake bay watershed. each of these sites tells a piece of the vast chesapeake story while providing federal support for the preservation and improvement of these sites to enhance both the historical and recreational user experience. the network is overseen by the national park service but the park service only manages 10 of the network sites. other gateways are managed by local, state, and nongovernmental organizations. the chesapeake bay network has always been a bipartisan program. the legislation that created it in 1998 passed the house on suspension by voice vote, was agreed to by unanimous consent in the senate, and signed into

law by president clinton. in 2002, a clean five-year re-authorization received similar unanimous support in congress and was signed into law by president bush. and last year an identical bill, h.r. 5540 passed the house by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. h.r. 965 will permanently re-authorize this bipartisan program which the white house conference on cooperative conservation headed by the department of the interior has called a success story. it's worth noting that the national park service has also recommended permanent re-authorization of the network. i encourage all my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill and continue to support the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: good morning, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: good morning. mr. diaz-balart: i'd like to thank the gentleman from new york, my good friend, mr. arcuri, for the time.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, the house of representatives is spending one hour debating the rule that will be used to consider the underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, the chesapeake bay water trails continuing authorization act. that simple and noncontroversial legislation barely two pages in length, passed last congress as my good friend has mentioned by an overwhelming vote. in fact, it passed by 321-86, that's pretty impressive margin. i believe it will pass today by the very least that margin.

so i would ask why the majority is going through all of this trouble of having the house consider a special rule for a two-page bill? why? is the house going to spend two hours today, approximately, discussing a bill that could have been handled just a few minutes under suspension and ultimately passed by an overwhelming majority of votes in this house? i'm not sure of the answer. but i think it's noteworthy that the majority spends a week's worth of congress' precious time on water trails in the chesapeake while americans face unemployment levels we have not seen in 26 years. the majority is requiring the house today to consider the

chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network continuing authorization act, a bill that spends $5 million-r million -- $5 million over five years through a process that requires hours of debate. but yesterday we considered the wind energy research and development act of 2009 with only 40 minutes total of debate and that bill authorized the expenditure of $1 billion. so i would ask how is it appropriate for the majority to require our -- hours of debate, up to two hours of debate, to spend $5 million but it authorizes $40 million -- 40 minutes of debate for $1 billion. .

it may not be appropriate, but it is certainly common practice under this majority to rush important legislation through the house. i fear we may see that again when the house considers the majority's health care reform legislation. consider that this chesapeake bay watertrails bill was introduced in february, it has remained unchanged since then. that is consistent with the speaker's pledge, still on her website, that, quote, members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports, text prior to floor consideration, end quote. but will the majority live up to their pledge to allow time

-- members time to read the health care bill when it finally comes together? perhaps if the majority had lived up to their promise, members would have had time to properly read and consider the cap and tax as well as the so-called stimulus bill and voted them down. so let's see, mr. speaker. let's see if they live up to their promise when we consider the health care legislation. i won't be holding my breath. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, i have no speakers at this time. i would inquire of the gentleman if he has any speakers. mr. diaz-balart: no. so we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, we are here today to re-authorize the

chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails network. this is a program that did not have a single member of congress oppose its creation or subsequent re-authorization. the program has been heralded as a success by the bush administration and was unanimously re-authorized during that administration. this rule provides for consideration of the legislation that would now permanently extend the organization for this bipartisan program. i move -- a move endorsed by the national park service. we all agree that the chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails network is a good programes that had a positive impact within the chesapeake bay watershed. but it's clear that some us disagree whether to make the re-authorization permanent, which is why we made a substitute amendment that would authorize the program for five years. mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous

question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. pursuant to house resolution 726, i call up h.r. 965 and ask

for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 965, a bill chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails network continuing authorization act -- a bill to amend the chesapeake bay initiative act of 1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, if offered by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from arizona and the gentleman from washington each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr.

speaker. and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 965. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 965, introduced by our friend and colleague, representative john sarbanes. h.r. 965 is a simple straightforward bill that would permanently authorize the highly successful fweathgeath network. over -- chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails network. over 10 million each year visit one of the 166 gateways site supported by this program. they come to kayak or canoe, hike or bike, picnic, hunt or fish or to watch wildlife. others come to visit the chesapeake's many maritime museums or to renew their acquaintans to the turning points in our nation's history, such as the sites at for the henry and yorktown battlefield

-- fort henry and yorktown battlefield. each of them comes away the crucial role that the chesapeake bay plays in our national story as the ecological and heart of the mid-atlantic. and that is the goal of the gateway network. the program is so successful that the national park service has heaped praise upon it. and the white house in 2005 declared it to be a cooperative conservation success story. congress originally authorized this program for five years, renewed that short-term authorization in 2002. in 2004, a national park service special resource study concluded that pearmnant commitment to the program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the chesapeake's status among america's national treasures. anyone who reads the "washington post" knows that the bay's oyster population is in trouble. that situation is both a symptom of one of the causes of the precarious health of the

bay. keeping people connected and concerned about the bay is a vital to each step in restoring that greatest wear from its headwaters to its oyster beds. the gateway network does just that. this program is a proven success and should be permanently authorized. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 965 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i must begin the debate today by expressing my sympathy to the democrat sponsors of this legislation for the poor luck that has befallen this bill for now two consecutive years. it seems like when the going gets tough, and there is a need to fill the void on the house floor, someone on the democrat side says, hey, let's roll out

the chesapeake watertrails bill. last year when gas prices were at record levels at an average of $4.19 in my home state of washington, democrat leaders put this bill on the floor to be debated for several hours. they sought to avoid voting on the republican plan to lower gas prices and open additional offshore areas to drilling. and so now here we are this year after the vigorous debate over health care that took place all across america in august, after the president's speech last night, with the government takeover of health care in america very much alive and a threat in this halls of congress, with the economy struggling, with more and more americans losing their jobs, with unemployment nearly -- nearing 10%, democrat leaders has once against sent this

chesapeake bay bill to the floor to fill a void. mr. speaker, this bill passed last year with over 300 out of 435 votes. in fact, specifically 321 members voted for this bill. this bill could be considered and passed by the house in just a few minutes under the expedited process of the suspension calendar. yet, mr. speaker, here we are this morning with several hours dedicated to debate on watertrails when this congress should be focused on creating jobs, getting control over massive government spending, spending, i might add, that has led to $1 trillion budget deficits in just a few months of this new obama administration. so, mr. speaker, just like last year, republicans will explain our concerns with this bill and then we'll focus on the higher priorities facing our country and the american people. chairman grijalva has very

clearly complained this bill. it renews a -- explained this bill. it renews a government program for the states surrounding the chesapeake bay. in fact, after the august discussion around the country of more than 1,000 -- more than 1,000-page health care bill, i am pleased, very pleased that this chesapeake bay bill is not even one half page in length. despite the shortness of the bill, however, republicans believe it can be improved upon and have proposed an alternative that is even shorter and that recognizes the need for this congress to exercise some degree of fiscal discipline. as currently written, this bill would extend the current chesapeake bay program forever without any constraints or limits on how much money can be spent on the program. mr. speaker, this may be a popular program in the mid-atlantic region of our country, yet, i don't believe

the natural resources committee in this congress should be in the habit of granting eternal life in unlimited funds sums of money to government programs. bills creating or renewing government programs are typically renewed for a set period of time. usually five years. to ensure that there is accountability in these programs, there is a review of these programs and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being misused, wasted or unnecessarily spent. there is simply no reason to exempt this chesapeake bay program from a periodic review of five years, and there is certainly no reason to lift the cap on spending for this program. the substitute amendment by congressman bishop of utah, who is the ranking republican on the national park subcommittee, would renew the bill for five years and retain current limits on spending. this program has previously, the chesapeake bay program has

previously existed on five-year periods of time, and it can continue to do so in the future if that amendment is agreed to. so i urge all of my colleagues to support the bishop amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point let me yield as much time as he may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, mr. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank chairman grijalva and chairman rahall as well for their strong support of the chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails network. this is a bill that i believe is quite noncontroversial. we are here today debating it because there is some difference of perspective with respect to whether there ought to be a permanent authorization of this bill or not. that's something i strongly support because i think it

sends a very powerful message to the citizenry in the chesapeake bay watershed that the federal government is ready to be a partner on a permanent basis. and if we want people to step forward and take ownership at the community level and across the watershed, we need to send that message to them. and there's no better way to send that message than to permanently authorize this program. the chesapeake bay has a tremendous store auto to tell. i'm from -- story to tell. i'm from maryland, of course, and we consider ourselves in many ways stewards of the chesapeake bay. it is a national treasure. it's the largest estuary body in the united states. but it doesn't just touch the state of maryland. it touches six states and the district of columbia. it touches new york, pennsylvania, maryland, delaware, virginia and west virginia.

the watershed stretches from michael arcuri's district where he represents cooperstown, new york, where it begins, to bobby scott's district in virginia. the co-sponsors of this bill are both democrat and republican. indicating the strong support that it's had from the beginning of the program. . some of you know i have introduced other legislation which has focused very specifically on how we engage the next generation, engage our young people in the environment, get them outdoors learning. this is a wonderful resource, the chesapeake bay gateways network is a wonderful resource for that. there are over 156 sites, historic, natural, cultural, recreational sites across the water shed that are available

because of the funding that comes through technical assistance and other grant funding, are available as a resource for the next generation to take advantage of. available for older generations to pass on the history of this area and this region to the next generation. so i'm excited and i appreciate the gentleman's sympathies to me, but i must say any opportunity that i have to talk about the importance of this network is one that i would seize happily. i do want to reiterate that this sevice component of a larger partnership that exists on behalf of the chesapeake bay on the part of the federal government that includes the national park service, that includes the national oceanic

and spheric administration, that -- and atmospheric administration, and this is a partnership that has worked fabulously over many, many years. so in closing let me just emphasize again and i know we'll debate it a little later with respect to the amendment that's going to be proposed by congressman bishop, but let me just emif a -- family size again how important it is this be be a permanent authorization. we need to send a message, powerful message to the citizens that are part of the chesapeake bay water shed that the federal government is here to stay when it comes to preserving and protecting this incredible resource that we have. with that i yield back to chairman grijalva. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have several members not on the floor. at this point i will reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield one

minute to our majority leader, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. i thank mr. sarbanes for his leadership on this bill. i rise today to express my strong support for h.r. 965. legislation introduced by representative john sarbanes whose father established this program some years ago. and who was one of my closest friends, still is, and with whom i worked very closely on this particular piece of legislation and so many other items directed at the environment in jeb and -- in general and the chesapeake bay in particular. this bill permanently re-authorizes the national park service's chesapeake bay gateways and water trail networks program. those of us fortunate enough to live in the region have been blessed with a multitude of magnificent natural resources, not the least of which is the nation's largest estuary, the chesapeake bay.

a body of water that has played such an important role in shaping the cultural, economic, political, and social history of our region. unfortunately the chesapeake bay of 2009 is not a pristine body that captain john smith first chartered on his expedition some 400 years ago. indeed, earlier this year the e.p.a. chesapeake bay program released the chesapeake bay's 2008 health and restoration assessment which found the overall health of the bay remained degraded and that the bay program is still far short of most restoration goals. shortly thereafter the university of maryland center for environmental and science issued a report card grading the bay's health as a c-minus for the second year in a row. that obviously is not good news. nor is it acceptable. over the years i'm -- i've joined with many of my colleagues in supporting a number of legislative initiatives and securing millions of dollars focused on

the restoration effort. while some progress has been made, clearly as those reports indicate, much remains to be done. i'm heartened, mr. speaker, by the commitment of president obama and his administration to the chesapeake bay. on may 12, president obama issued an executive order declaring the restoration of the bay requires a renewed commitment to controlling pollution, protecting habitat, conserving land, and improving management of natural resources. i have the privilege of living on one of the tributaries that flows into the chesapeake bay, the patuxent river, i know how critical it is. we have the anacostia river here and the potomac river here in our city. the president declared that the federal government should lead this effort and established a federal leadership committee for the chesapeake bay consisting of relevant agencies which we -- would be chaired by the e.p.a.

administrator. the agencies were directed to draft and submit reports to the committee making specific recommendations for protecting the chesapeake. the initial reports are slated to be made public today, which makes this effort very timely. h.r. 965, the legislation we are now considering, takes another important step forward in our efforts by permanently authorizing a program that has already done so much to raise awareness of the fragile health of the bay and directly engage our region's citizens and visitors to take an active role in fulfilling our shared goal of restoring the chesapeake. the chesapeake bay gateway network, which includes more than 150 museums, state parks, wildlife refuges, and other sites in six states and the district of columbia was established, mr. speaker, to link together these wonderful places in the hopes of enabling visitors to better understand and appreciate the role they can

play in the bay's survival. unfortunately and tragically much of the bay's stress is man made. the program enables sites to compete for grant funding which must be fully matched for projects that will help conserve, restore, and interpret their roles in the bay's natural, cultural, and social history. the gateway's program is a critical component to fostering a commitment among our citizens to restore the bay and i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. and in closing let me thank mr. grijalva for his leadership in bringing this to the floor and mr. sarbanes for his sponsorship and continuing the extraordinary legacy that his father over 30 years in the united states senate and six years in the house of representatives contributed to this country and to the chesapeake bay and our environment in particular. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i thank you, mr. speaker. this will be a debate on a bill of complete congenality because i don't think any of us are really opposed to a lot of what is attempted in this underlying bill. and i'm certainly am not, mr. speaker, one who likes to say i told you so. but i told you so. you see it was said in the history of this particular bill the first time it was passed it was passed with a five-year re-authorization and it passed unanimously in both houses. second time it was re-authorized five years, passed unanimously in both houses. last year you decided to take the re-authorization away, not the five-year limit and we said on the floor if you actually put that back in there it would have a significant enhancement of its ability to pass the senate. you didn't do it, it didn't pass the senate. so we are back here a year later doing the same thing again. i don't want to say i told you

so, but to quote that great philosopher, yogi berra, this is like deja vu all over again. for indeed a year ago last year in-- instead of talking about energy issues which were primarily on the minetsdz of the american people, we brought up this particular bill and apparently did the same thing we are doing this year when health care is primarily on the minds of most people. this is a particular bill which -- in fact it's the only bill under a rule we are going to debate this year. i appreciate the majority leader being here and his statements on this particular bill. i don't know if i appreciate flying back for four hours just to do this bill this week, but nonetheless it is still the only one we are going to have here even though there are significant issues we should be discussing, the american people want us to discuss. the majority leader was slightly in err in what he said, though. everything he said about the cleanup of the chesapeake bay was accurate, but this is not a cleanup bill. this is not an environmental

protection bill. this is not an e.p.a. bill. this is a recreation bill. i don't oppose that, but it is clear this is a recreation bill. and the national park service has made several suggestions because once again there are no federal waters or federal assets associated in this particular area. the national park service did say that we should give technical assistance to this area, but they did not recommend fully funding on a nonrenewable basis other types of grant programs to this particular area. indeed the obama budget does not have money in it for this particular bill. so one of the things we need to talk about is if we are going to abrogate our oversight responsibilities and if we decide not to abrogate our oversight responsibilities and treat this bill as other bills from the resource committee have been treated, we would probably have a bert chance of actually passing the bill this year in both houses of congress and not coming back for a third try next time around. with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i flew back four hours to deal with this very important piece of legislation, but also to listen to our president last night, which i thought was worth the trip. i would now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from maryland, sponsor of the legislation, co-sponsor of the legislation, mr. contractoville -- kratovil. mr. kratovil: i rise in support of this bill offered by my friend and colleague from maryland, representative john sarbanes. this act is vital to the residents of maryland's first congressional district and all those who rely on a healthy chesapeake bay for commercial, recreational, and historical purposes. the act provides grants to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife sanctuaries, historic sites, museums, and water

trails. a network has been developed that ties sites together to provide meaningful experiences and foster citizen stewardship of the chesapeake bay not only by those who have the good fortune to live within its water shed but all who come to visit or able to benefit economically from it. since 2000 the network has grown to include 156 gateways in six states and the district of columbia. and over 1,500 miles of established and developing water trails, many of which are are located in my district within the boundaries of maryland's first congressional district. from sandy point state park on maryland's western shore traversing the bay bridge to the schooner sultana in chestertown, the black water wildlife refuge in dorchester county, down the lower shore to the smith island center in crisfield, network destinations literally dot the landscape of the first congressional district with historical, environmental, and cultural landmarks.

the ultimate goal of this network is to create a sphere of neutral, cultural, historical, and recreational sites throughout the chesapeake bay region. residents and visitors are able to visit these places to learn about the bay's diverse stories, experience its history, and enjoy its natural beauty. whether it's a family paddling water trail, riding on aer ifry, or driving a scenic tour route, each and every visitor will hopefully develop a greater sense of appreciation for our nation's largest estuary. for these reasons i support the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network continuing authorization act and urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you again to mr. sarbanes for sponsoring the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, a very distinguished member and valuable member of the committee on natural resources. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

oomp a i rise in support of h.r. 965, the legislation to re-authorize the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network. i represent virginia's first congressional district better known as america's first district, which is largely defined by the chesapeake bay. my constituents live, work, and play in the bay water shed. my district includes many components of the gateways' network from historic yorktown and jamestown to george washington's birthplace in westmoreland countive the gateways network links together over 100 parks, museums, wildlife refuges, and other cultural and historic sites into a comprehensive system. the gateway program connects visitors with the natural beauty and rich history and recreational opportunities within the chesapeake bay water shed. i have had the privilege to travel the trail, specifically the captain john smith water trail. it is an amazing asset we have. i have heard from many constituents that realize how

valuable that is and what a great experience it brings to them to travel up and down the bay to link all the history and resources that are there in our wonderful bay water shed. one of those recreational opportunities as i said, the network provides, is kayak or sail the captain john smith water trail. it's an amazing experience. that traces john smith's 17th century voyage of discovery and can you put yourself in the place of captain john smith and the experience that he had when he first arrived on these shores. . again, mr. speaker, i want to commend mr. sarbanes for his effort and leadership in our efforts to focus on the bay and its restoration and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: yeah, if i may inquire of mr. hastings if you have any additional speakers? mr. hastings: i have a few others but they are not here.

mr. speaker, does the gentleman have any more speakers on his side? mr. grijalva: no, mr. speaker. mr. hastings: with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 111-111-249 offered by mr. bishop of utah. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity of

presenting this particular amendment, not because we have any an tit pee towards chesapeake bay or the recreational purposes that may be there, and i appreciate the fact that you enjoyed the first speech, but it's because it's time we do it the right way. surely we can bully our way through this any way we want to but we need to do the way it was done the first time and the second time and done this particular time. when this bill last year came out of the resources committee it was compiled with six other bills all of which had five-year re-authorizations. some of the bills that resources sent out here have had not had those type of re-authorizations, however, they had another factor that put a cap on the kind of appropriations that can be there. and that's why a five-year re-authorization process is the perfect kind of compromise. it's a position between the national parks service, which last year said there should be technical assistance but was opposed to any kind of grant process going through because they said this program had matured to the point it no

longer needed to be supported by the federal government or the sponsors' approach which simply says take off and continue on with what has now been close to $900 million in earmarks. it's not a problem. the appropriations is not a problem. the problem is we are now giving up our rights to review these types of programs which is not what an authorizing committee ought to do. there is in past experience, not here but in past experience where sites that no longer have to be renewed by congress do become lethargic and no longer have that desire for innovation to produce results. does not necessarily say it will happen here but that has been the process that we have learned through history. the purpose of an authorizing committee is to authorize and then review those organizations which is why it has been tradition of committees to put in an authorization period for those particular reviews.

and it is not wise for congress to abrogate our congressional responsibility for those purposes. what we're talking about is simply saying, look, what we need as a congress are the options to review this in the future, and not take the options off the table. that's the one thing all americans are talking about more than anything else is the idea of options. my family just gave me an ipod. i don't know how to download stuff but they can put music on there. when i was growing up, if i wanted a song and, mr. speaker, you are probably in the same situation i was, i had to buy the entire record to get the song. i don't need to do that. i now have more options. if i want to go buy cereal, there is an entire wall of potential cerals up there. i have options. if i want vanilla ice cream, i can go to a store that offers me 31 different flavors. our entire life is provided by options.

and yet as a congress we decide and seem to have this tendency to take options off the table so we don't have them for the future. that's un-- that to me is just a mind-boggling approach to it. it's the same thinking that we're talking about in hark, which is the topic on -- health care, which is the topic on the minds of the american people, which is what we should be talking on this floor whether than re-authorizing a bill we all like and support. but the issue once again is options for the american people. there are a myriad type of proposals being put out there by some of my republican colleagues, all which deal with the concept of giving them options to the american people. options to buy their own health care, options to get h.s.a.'s, options to have association pools, options which they can buy across lines, options in which we can have tort reform. all of those should be on the table and that's what we should be doing. and for this particular bill, we are once again limiting our options which is the exact opposite thing government should be doing. now, that's what's important

and that's where we should be going. like i said a year ago we had this particular bill, this particular amendment, again, which would have made it better and probably helped the senate to actually include it in their list of bills to be passed. if we do this particular amendment to do what we have traditionally done with other bills, what we are doing is simply providing congress with the options congress should accept and make sure that we are always reviewing the programs we have to see what they are doing and a five-year period is the norm. it's traditional. this simply would say we are going to do this bill and we are going to do it totally the right way. so once again it might be passed unanimously as it was the first time when they had a review in there and the second time when they had a review in there and was not passed the third time when they decided not to put a review in this particular legislation. it's that option. we shoulding dob it. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. -- we should be doing it. with that, mr. speaker, i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. madam secretary. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has pass s. 1023, cited as the traffic promotion act of 2009, in which the concurrence of the house has requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, representative bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. the national park service has found that this is a very, very successful program. in large part because of federal commitment leverages its funding and support from state, local and nonprofit partners who care deeply about the health of the chesapeake bay. there was a broad agreement that making the federal commitment to this program permanent will send a strong signal to the program's partners and make the program even more effective in the long run. i would point out that both the

save america's treasures and preserve america programs have permanent authorizations. conversely, amending the bill to make the authorization time limited would cause funding partners to question the federal commitment and could cause private contributions to drop off. the purpose of granting this program a permanent authorization is to avoid having to return to congress every five years to get new legislation for what is by all measures a successful program. i should add that despite my friend's arguments about a permanent authorization, this program will continue to receive annual oversight through the appropriations process. regarding the existing cap on annual funding for the program, such a cap may have been appropriate when the program was first authorized in 1998. however, as more and more people become aware of the importance of the bay, the challenges it faces, congress should provide more funding for the grant program.

proponents would like to be able to see increased funding through the appropriations process and not have to get new authorization legislation each time they seek more funding. in is an important and successful program. it deserves a permanent authorization. i urge members to vote against the bishop amendment and for h.r. 965 to permanently authorize this very excellent program. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. fleming: i thank my friend, mr. bishop from utah, for letting me speak. you know, i enjoy serving on natural resources and certainly this is an important topic, but i do want to bring up what happened on this very floor last night with regards to health care. the congressional research

service, which as you know are experts when it comes to whatever happens in terms of academics, and congress came out with a report this morning on the controversial topic of does obamacare or h.r. 3200 or whichever democratic version we are talking about, does it cover illegal immigrants? and let me give you a quote from the c.r.s. it says, under h.r. 3200 a health insurance exchange would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option. h.r. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens whether legally or illegally present or in the united states. so it's very clear that despite the fact that our president claims that this does not cover

illegal immigrants it absolutely does. in fact, in the schip bill earlier this year, we tried on our side of the aisle to get language that was specific to require some sort of proof before someone could sign up for coverage under schip that would show that they were not illegal immigrants. of course, that tougher language was removed. also, with regard to $900 billion or so that our president mentioned last night, the cost of the program, which is more that some believe is $1.6 trillion, he talked about savings as a result of removal of waste, fraud and abuse. now, these programs, medicare and medicaid, which are government-run programs, have been in existence for around 45 years. what have we learned recently that we haven't known for all of these years that we can now

remove fraud, waste and abuse that we couldn't for 45 years? in a 48-minute speech last night the president did not bring up one new idea, any new strategy or techniques that would allow us to remove fraud, waste and abuse any better than we have been able to for all these years. truth of the matter is that in order to reduce what we already have as waste in the system we would have to create even another level or two of extremely expensive bureaucracy that would cost even more than what we would recover. the fact of the matter is that a government system, whether it's running cash for clunkers or the post office, is inept at controlling waste, fraud and abuse. it creates many new bureockrassies, in this case, -- bureaucracies, in this case, 58 new bureaucracies in this health care system. and without moving to a private industrial form this wouldn't

be possible. mr. bishop: i give the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman for that. to kind of summarize, i was personally offended last night when our president insen waited, if not coming out -- insinuated, if not coming out saying that we have been lying what we've been saying about these health care bills. but the fact is if you look at the details, if you look at the truth, you find that what we've been saying we can back up with facts, whether it is taxpayer-funded abortions, which is definitely covered in all versions of the bill on the democrat's side, coverage of illegal immigrants, definitely covered. and then, of course, the cost of this monstrosity, which is going to start at $1.6 trillion, and after about 10 years, it's going to go up from there. never bending the cost curve down. so, again, i would like to suggest that rather than being called out for so-called myths,

i think we should really get to the bottom and real truth of this matter. and i thank you for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. and in an effort to reintroduce the germaneness to the debane on the amendment, let me recognize mr. sarbanes for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman grijalva. i agree, there will be plenty of time to debate the health reform bill and to demonstrate very clearly that it does not extend benefits to those who are here unlawfully. but i hope the american people have the confidence that we can debate the health bill at the appropriate time and in the appropriate ways while also conducting other business that faces the nation, which is, of course, what we're trying to do this morning with respect to the chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails network. and responding to some of the points raised by my colleague, congressman bishop, i do just want to emphasize, we

understand that it's not maybe standard to move to a permanent authorization that typically one would go to five-year re-authorizations. and i want to make sure that people understand this is not being done lightly. this is being done for very specific reasons. there are times when based on the experience of a program and an initiative, as in this case, you reach the conclusion that the program is worth authorizing on a permanent basis because you want to send a message. and it's particularly important to do that in circumstances where a key ingredient of the success of the program is the fact that you have thousands of ordinary citizens through community groups and nonprofits and other organizations stepping forward on a daily basis saying, yes, we want to be partners in this effort.

. the last thing that we want to do is at that moment when so many people are saying yes, you can count on me, at the community level to take up this charge, to protect and preserve the chesapeake bay, to say to them, well, we are not sure this commitment on behalf of the federal government is going to be therer for the long term. that's why it's critical to this program that we authorize it on a permanent basis. so i want to urge that we do that. i do also want to just note that this program couldn't be further away from an earmark program. that was the -- the suggestion was made there. in fact the national park service, they make judgment on which partners to recognize based on applications that come in for grant funding. and the congress has never approved an earmark as part of the chesapeake bay gateways program. so this is a good program. i think it's one that deserves

to be authorized on a permanent basis for the reasons that i indicated. i would urge that we oppose the bishop amendment. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah has one minute remaining. mr. bishop: if i could inquire whether the gentleman from arizona has additional speakers. i'm ready to use my final minute if i might, mr. speaker. this -- we are talking here -- i don't want to be cantankerous about this. we are talking about a decent bill from a decent program and a decent sponsor. but we are not in the system of sending out messages. we are a legislative body that is supposed to review and supposed to budget and in that way we should not be be abrogating our responsibilities over to the appropriators. it's an authorizing concept. it's what authorizers ought to do. what we should be doing. nepa is renewed. endangered species is renewed. the only thing we have not

renewed and is on a permanent basis is the nautical charting act that was started in the 1700's by thomas jefferson. what we are talking about is doing what is the norm and what is rational. to do this bill the right way. and actually i hate to say this but try to not limit what we are doing as a body. health care is what we should be talking about. the bill, that pelosi has put on the floor is not the only idea. there are better ideas out there that think outside the box. unless we put the price bill, and shadegg bill, and ryan bill on the floor to be discussed and debated we will not have all the options open to us. that is also why i'm arguing we should have a permanent review, a review every five years of this program. it is what congress does and we should do it and do it the right way. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want -- in closing the

national park service gave the subcommittee testimony and they said through technical and financial assistance the national park service has assisted gateways to develop hundreds of partnerships across the water shed to help people understand and appreciate the chesapeake bay. it has been mentioned that nevertheless the bush administration testified that it opposed this financial assistance over the grants program. when i asked a park service witness at that teven hearing about that contradiction, he said that the park service would love to continue the grants program but it has -- it was a financial decision made by o.m.b. by the bush administration. this is a good program. it is all linked together. a permanent authorization would secure this program for the future. it is a vital environmental link to the mid-atlantic that must be saved. with that i urge a no vote on

the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to house resolution 726, the previous question is ordered on the bill and the amendment by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: the chesapeake bay initiative act of 1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. hastings: in its present form, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. hastings of washington moves to recommit the bill h.r. 965 to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with

the following amendment. at the end of the bill, add the following new section, section 3, effective date, the amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is a very, very simple motion to recommit. many times in this body, and i think rightfully so, we are accused of not reading bills or amendments that are before us. i cite of course the cap and trade or cap and tax bill when we were thrust an 800-page amendment only eight hours or so before we debated it. we had 1,100-page health care bill that -- america has now seen and digesting and responding back to us. this is a very short bill as i

had mentioned, and this amendment, motion to recommit, is also very, very short. in fact, i am going to read it, mr. speaker, so that everybody can hear it. it is that short. it says, at the end of the bill add the following new section, section 3, the amendments made by section -- let me start over, mr. speaker, the amendments made by section 2 should not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion. it's a small, small measure of fiscal discipline. by the way, mr. speaker, i have been here for 15 years, you have been here slightly longer than i have, but i have to say this is the first congress that i can ever remember using the term, $1 trillion in terms of fiscal budgets in this country. in fact i would suggest everybody take this little test.

go back to your offices and write down yourself what $1 trillion is. it's a one followed by 12 zeros. it would kind ever wake you up. the reason that -- kind of wake you up. the reason that i offer this motion to recommit, with unemployment approaching 10%, upside-down mortgages, and homeowners facing foreclosure, i think it is hardly time to add eternal life and unlimited money to nice, a very nice but unnecessary federal program. at a time when we are contemplating adding several massive new government programs such as health care that i just mentioned and cap and trade or cap and tax as i mentioned, i think it might be time to pause and consider the difference between things we need and things that we merely want. of course additional water trails and interpretive centers are nice to have, but increasing the number is not a necessity in this time.

i am not opposed to them, by the way, but i am not prepared to support a law that says that this particular earmark program must be extended for all time with unlimited funds regardless of the deficit. one of the popular jokes ever our constituents when they -- of our constituents when they want to disparage washington is that the only earthy thing that has perpetual life is a government program. we need not add to their low view of how we operate. so i urge my colleagues to support this n.t.r. and we will add a degree of fiscal restraint to this legislation and i think that that restraint is badly needed. mr. speaker, i am going to do something that probably has never been done, i'm going to reread this motion to recommit because it is so short. at the end of the bill add the following new section, section 3, effective date, the

amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, mr. speaker. the motion doesn't tell us who would have the certification power or how we would meet the standard that the motion to recommit attempts to make. it's like saying we on the republican side ran up a huge deficit, now we want to penalize this one little program until you clean up the mess. and why this program? why not a program as was done this morning at the full -- resources committee meeting where the responsibleror of the motion to recommit, the

gentleman from washington, had a road that his legislation passed, it ran in his district, that was considered and passed. should we put that same standard on that legislation? this is arbitrary. this motion to recommit. while it attempts to score political points, it is also if passed jeopardizes a very valuable resource that if not restored and protected through the legislation will cause disastrous economic, environmental, culture -- cultural, and health consequences, bad consequences for the mid-atlantic and for the nation as a whole. the motion to recommit while an attempt to score points has no merit. it's arbitrary. and i urge its defeat. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 194, the nays are 229. the amendment is not agreed to. the motion is not agreed to. for what purpose does --

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, on september 2 we received the sad news of the passing of w.g. bill hefner, reapt tif for 12 terms from the eighth district of north carolina. he served from 1975 to 1998. bill hefner was a beloved and respected member of this body. a man who never lost his sympathy for the underdog and never loss his capacity to advocate for the working people of our state and our nation. bill was probably best known for his impact on the quality of life of our military men and

women, our service men and women through his chairmanship of the military construction appropriations subcommittee. at this point i'd like to yield to larry kissell, who currently represents the eighth district of north carolina, and who on tuesday night convened a special order to pay tribute to this wonderful man. mr. kissell: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend? the gentleman will proceed. mr. kissell: mr. speaker, mr. hefner was my congressman for 24 years, and he was a congressman that was beloved by the people of the district because he never forgot where he came from. he came to north carolina having grown up in alabama, is a son of a share cropper. he had a gift given to him by god to sing music and he came to north carolina as a gospel singer, very successful and had

never run for office before he ran for congress. we in the eighth district miss him and pass on our thoughts to his widow, nancy, and his daughters, stacy and sheila. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. price: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the dean of our delegation, howard coble. mr. coble: i thank the gentleman from north carolina for yielding. bill hefner's district was conparticular with us to my district. -- conparticular with us to my sdrigget. they asked me to say a good word for him. i did that but i did not say a bad word against bill. but you know we house members have a way of guarding our district lives very jealously. and bill said to me, said the next time you come to me in my district i'm going to bring a gospel quartet into your district and get your attention. i said, well, bill, when you do, will you promise to sing "sweet buella land." he was so taken aback that i

knew these songs. he said, oh, forget about it. i'll ta to you later. he was indeed a friend of the veterans. he was a good man. we'll miss him and i yield back to mr. price. mr. price: i thank the gentleman. and i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in connection with last tuesday's special orders. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. price: and now i ask that all members rise and that we observe a moment of silence in member of our dear -- in memory of a dear departed colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: all members will rise.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 311. nays are 107. the bill is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i thank the speaker. i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing

next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. on monday the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for horning hour debate and 12:00 for legislative business. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. on friday, no votes are expected in the house. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of suspension of bills -- suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, we'll consider h.r. 324746, the advance vehicle technology act of 2009 and h.r. 3221, the student aid and fiscal responsibility act of 2009. yield back. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman correct. the house is not in order. the house will come to order.

the gentleman will proceed. mr. mcclintock: since this is the first colloquy of the fall, i'd like to give the members and public a sense of what the house will be considering over the next couple months. does the gentleman -- what do you expect to be voting on during the months of september and october? i yield to the gentleman? mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield? i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all, of course, as i know -- the house has passed -- mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, as you know we passed all 12 of our appropriation bills. so we are ready to go to conference on all 12 of those bills. the senate has passed four of their bills and is working on the balance. we hope to conference and have on the floor a number of those

bills before the end of september, before the beginning of the fiscal year. there obviously will be given the senate's schedule, a requirement for a continuing resolution for some period of time, perhaps 30-day period time frame. so we'll be considering those bills, those conference reports. in addition as you heard the student loan reform bill will be on the floor next week. we believe defense authorization is in conference. we expect that conference report. health care reform obviously we expect to do that this fall. regulation -- regulatory reform is expected to be an item on our agenda in the house this fall. additionally, we'll be waiting on the senate -- on a number of items we sent to them, including climate change and food safety, which, as you know, the house passed. so those will be some of the items. that's not an exhaustive list, but is i think a good list of

what we expect to be considering during the coming weeks. mr. mcclintock: reclaiming my time. doose the gentleman to be in session beyond the target adjournment day of october 30? mr. hoyer: yes. obviously that was a target date not knowing how quickly we would proceed. clearly health care among other issues is taking, as we understand it, and needed to, a longer time. so consideration of that and the appropriation bills, and other authorization bills that are going between the two houses will, i think, clearly take us beyond october 30. mr. mccarthy: does the gentleman see the house taking any days or weeks off that are currently scheduled between now and the 30th? mr. hoyer: let me say that i believe that every week's schedule in october we will be meeting. however in november as the gentleman probably knows

veterans day falls exactly in the middle of the week on a wednesday. we are now talking about what that means in terms of schedule because obviously all the members want to be home with their various organizations, municipalities, and counties, communities to honor our veterans on that day and honor the service of those who have kept this country free. as a result we are trying to figure out whether or not it makes any sense to either schedule a monday or tuesday or thursday or friday and have members come back and forth for that. but we have not made that decision, but it is in terms of the weeks that we are looking at over the next 10 weeks, that is a week that may not be one in which we'll meet. we will try to make that determination very soon, within the next couple of weeks. part of which will be dictated by the schedule, what's moving,

how much time we need available. in addition to that, we will not be meeting thanksgiving week. i say that pretty definitively. obviously if we could finish the monday or tuesday of thanksgiving week, finish in terms of adjournment, sine die, for this session, then i think that might change that, but other than that my expectation is we would not be meeting thanksgiving week. if we needed to meet longer than thanksgiving week. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. currently you have scheduled out between now and october 30, do you see any of those mondays or fridays that maybe we would not be in session having done our work during the week knowing that the debates going on still within health care and others, people could be back in their districts? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. my expectation is that it is quite possible that we would

take off either a monday that's now scheduled or two or three, or a friday. one or the other. given the flow of work, we did a lot of work, worked very hard. we passed a lot of legislation, but obviously to complete that we need to come back from the senate, need to complete conference reports. so to some degree the flow of work will dictate that schedule. but on the other hand we want to give all the members on both sides appropriate notice so they can utilize the time at home to be discussing with their constituents pending legislation, in particular the health care bill. mr. mccarthy: would the gentleman be able to tell early for at least september knowing the mondays and fridays that we may be able to be working at home? mr. hoyer: could you we pete that? mr. mccarthy: of the mondays and fridays now if you have made that decision? mr. hoyer: we have not. what i indicated i hope to be

working on that and i hope next week to have at least made a preliminary decision on some of the mondays and/or fridays. may not be all of the ones that we'll be able to have members have an opportunity to work at home, and again it's a little difficult to do that because it's a little difficult to predict the work flow schedule. mr. mccarthy: i appreciate the gentleman's answer. mr. hoyer: i want to reiterate, we do expect next week to at least pick a number in the relatively near term, that means september, so that members will have prior notice. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. knowing we heard the president last night and we are all coming off from an august recess where we watched america wake up and really pay attention to what's going on and here in congress and voice their opinion when it comes to health care, and having watched that and having my own town hall meetings, watching

other members' town hall meetings throughout the country and some of the questions raised, i listened to the president last night talk about ideas and a public plan and others, the the gentleman, yourself, had talked during your town halls, and some leadership says a public plan has to be in the plan or a bill will not go through, i know the gentleman from maryland said it doesn't have to be exactly a public plan in there. does the democratic leadership position include a government option or exactly a public plan or a trigger? i yield to the gentleman. . mr. hoyer: as you heard the president's comments last night, i agree strongly with the president and the speaker and i think frankly there's no difference in the three of us. we all believe that a president option is an important option. money to give consumers options that they might not otherwise have. and bring prices down for

consumers as well as for government. so that there's no difference there on the importance of the public option. i'm for a public option. i don't know if you watched my town meeting. that question was asked and i responded i'm for the public option. what i have said is essentially what the president said last night was there is much in this bill that i think advantages consumers, businesses, individuals and families. and i think the public option is important but there are other things in the bill which are important. but i expect to bring the bill that we're -- that we're going to bring a bill to the floor. i'm certainly hopeful that has a public option in it. the president has indicated that he thinks that's the best alternative. he did, however, say and i share his view if there are other ways that people think we can do it, provide that competitive model to bring

prices down and to make sure that consumers get the best product available, if there are other ways to do it then we're certainly open to hearing them. >> does the gentleman -- mr. mccarthy: does the gentleman believe that health care will come to the floor in the house and senate? mr. hoyer: i think the bill will come to the house when it is ready. we need to have a consensus on how the bill should be fashioned. we believe on this side that the committees are some 85% in agreement, as you know, the energy and commerce committee, the educational and labor committee, ways and means committee. as you also know, there are differences between those bills. we're working on that at this point in time to see how we can make those compatible. the president's comments last night will obviously be taken into consideration. and so we will bring to the

floor a bill that we believe reflects the president's view, our view and hopefully the views in part, at least, some of the members on your side of the aisle. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. reclaiming my time. i notice you refer to the bill and sometimes another bill and you have this bill h.r. 3200 done by one side of the aisle, passed three committees. i know last time when president clinton was in and they took up health care and they produced the bill in ways and means, it took seven weeks of debate. i know this one was 48 hours and others were a short time period. when you refer to that bill are you referring to 3200 coming before this body, this house? i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. first of all, let me say i don't know where he gets two weeks. the ways and means committee i know was in discussion -- you may mean formal hearings on the

bill, but we had 80 hearings in the committees over the last 24 months on health care and reform. so it was an extensive part of the debate of every candidate for president over the course of 2008 and frankly prior to 2008. this bill has been -- and many of its facets have been considered extensively. many parts of which were in plans presented by presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle, democrat and republican, and clearly the president of the united states talked extensively about his ideas and where he wanted to go on health reform. and much of what he said and proposed was included in the bills that have been acted upon. and i think reflect his views as well as the views of many people not only in this body with you throughout the country. from that standpoint we believe this has gotten very extensive

consideration. i think it's unprecedented we had over 1,000 town meetings on our side. i'm not sure -- i know you had a number of town meetings on your side. i'm not sure the number. but literally i think thousands and thousands of americans had an opportunity to participate and are continuing to participate in discussion of the specifics of this bill. so we think it's gotten very widespread and very thorough consideration. given that consideration, there are still differences that we're working on. mr. mccarthy: reclaiming my time. just referring back to what i said was, when the clinton administration did health care, on ways and means they debated for seven weeks. when taking the bill up itself. when we did it this time it was 48 hours of presenting the bill, the amendments, being voted out of committee. knowing the call for the american public about transparency and we all heard that during the month of

august, would the gentleman allow before any bill comes to the floor, and i guess the bill will be 3200, from what i'm hearing the gentleman say -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield on that issue -- will the gentleman yield because i want to clarify? mr. mccarthy: yes. mr. hoyer: 3200 was a base bill that was put together by the committee, staff as a mark. my expectation is that there will be a companion that will be put together and will probably have a new number on it. so i don't think 3200, which was a base mark, but you understand this was a bill, as you well know, in three committees. so there may well be a bill fashioned from the product of the three committees. mr. mccarthy: reclaiming my time. it will be a different number but in essence the same bill.

will the gentleman allow before that bill is voted on this floor when you come to the conclusion of where that bill ends up, would we be able to have the time to go back to the american public and again all of us have town hall meetings against for the transparency of saying this is the bill that would be voted on in the house, and i yield to the gentleman? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there has been unprecedented, i reiterate, i don't think you can remember and i've been here 29 years and i can't remember a bill that was been more widely vetted than this bill in terms of the american public. maybe the social security proposal from the president some years ago. that was pretty widely vetted but i don't think as widely vetted as this proposal. i say to the gentleman, you go, you vet the bill, you discuss alternatives and you then come back after having listened to those alternatives and fashion a bill. you don't have new committee hearings. whether it's a health care bill

or any other bill, you amend it, you perfect it, pursuant to hearings, and then you bring it to the floor. i don't think we'll expect to treat this bill any differently. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. the only thing i ask knowing that the american public did have this bill vetted but the majority of the american public disagreed with this bill, disagreed with the public option. and having the transparency here that the american public is asking, have the american public so engaged and educated on health care and being such an issue, i think it would be good for this body to go on and vote again, whatever comes before that bill to come to the house that you enlight the opportunity for members to go home and have a town hall and explain what's in the final version of the bill before that vote takes place. i think the american public would appreciate it and be a great opportunity for both sides. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman would yield, i want to say clearly that the bill that the base bill, the mark bill from which the three committees worked, as you know, was put

online before the august break so that it's been online for a very long period of time. now, there will be changes. there will be amendments. there have already been amendments in the three committees. and those have been online. so i think the gentleman's concern is correct. we share it. we want to make sure the public has the opportunity to know what is being done, that we transparently have the specifics for the american public to know what we're doing and for the members to have that knowledge. and we intend to do that. now, whether or not we're going to have a time frame in which somebody can have a town hall meeting which may take a month to notice and get together, i think you would be shocked if i responded to you that, oh, sure, we'll just wait around until you have your town meetings. so i'm not going to say that, but i do appreciate the gentleman's point which is we want to make sure that the

public does in fact have notice. mr. mccarthy: well, i appreciate the gentleman and i appreciate his answers. i did no notice. i didn't do a mailer. get an opportunity where we have an opportunity now that it will be in october, i have 3,000 people. it's 1% of the whole city's population turn out. and very engaged, very knowledgeable of the bill itself. i hope the opportunity comes that knowing maybe there's a different number on this bill but it is still 3200 that the public would be able to see, and i will tell the gentleman that the republicans on this side have a lot of ideas about health care, a lot of bills out there of ways that we can lower the cost, take care of pre-existing conditions and actually make health care much better for all of americans. i appreciate the time and yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate. and when it adjourns that day it adjourn to meet at 10:30

a.m. for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a rasmussen poll found that 23% voters believe that americans should be available for health care subsidies. h.r. 3200, the health care bill, gives coverage to illegal immigrants despite what the president says. although language in the bill purports to prevent illegal immigrants from getting coverage, evenlyine the congressional research service confirms there are three major loopholes that renders the language meaningless. there is no method to verify eligibility. an amendment that was included was defeated in committee. illegal immigrants are not prohibited from using the public option.

better described as the government man day and number three, all members of families including illegal immigrants may be eligible as a group, and language indicates so. so if congress wants to represents the wishes of the people, including the 70% of democrats and 87% of independents, they should add citizenship verification of eligibility to any health care legislation but they have vote it had down in committee 29-28. false claims about not covering illegal immigrants are hallow. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burton: mr. speaker, last night the president made a very eloquent speech in the house chamber. i'm always impressed with his eloquence. one of the things he said that stuck with me, he said, if the republicans -- he didn't say republicans, he said if anyone in the chamber and i think he

was referring to republicans, if anyone in the chamber doesn't state the facts correctly or misleads the american people, he's going to call them out. that's a pretty tough term. call them out. and so i just like to say if i were talking to the president right now, mr. president, that's a double-edged sword. you said you're going to call us out if we don't tell the truth. well, in the next series today, i'm going to take a five-minute special order, and i'm going to go through everything or as many as i can get through in five minutes, i'm going to go through everything the president said last night which was not quite true. because i think the american people really need to know the facts, and so we're going to call the president out. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, congress is spending money we don't have on things we cannot afford. we spent billions on the so-called stimulus that hasn't worked.

the government took over the car industry and gave money to the fat cats on wall street. congress gave money -- america's money to the banking industry, and this house passed the national energy tax. the government is out of control. nearly 10% of the people are unemployed. with these hard economic times, now we're told we have to spend $1 trillion on a health care bill that is still confusing to most americans. where are we supposed to get the money? we cannot continue to spend money we don't have and borrow it from our friends like china. this spending will cause inflation, and eventually somebody is going to get a massive tax increase to pay for a government gone wild. some taxocrats wish to tax small businesses into oblivion, the backbone of our country. even if this is the greatest health care bill in the world, we cannot tax more americans to pay for it. the american people deserve a break from all the spending, borrowing and taxation and that's just the way it is. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you.

mr. speaker, new gallup poll says 39% of americans want their member of congress to vote against the health care overhaul while 37% want their representative to support it. an associated press poll shows 49% oppose a health care overhaul. the numbers show a deep division in the nation, one that was evident in the august town hall meetings. these were people who took the time to read the house bill and decide against it because of cost, complication, and controversy. yet there are elements in all the proposals before congress in which people can agree, and it's time to go back to the drawing board and be inclusive. as a former health care provider, i very much like to be part of the solution that is will help the situation without breaking the bank. tort reform is a must to reduce the cost of health care. allowing insurers to compete across state lines will increase competition and thereby lower costs. addressing work force issues is crucial as baby boomer doctors, nurses, and technicians retire. let's look at the approximate 13 million americans out of 303

million who don't have an option for insurance and find a way to help the population that actually needs our help. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as we approach the eighth anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attacks on our nation, we honor those innocent people who perished on that terrible day and extend our continued prayers and sympathy to their loved ones. we remember the tremendous heroism and self-sacrifice of so many in new york, at the pentagon, and on a plane over shanksville, pennsylvania. closer to home in new jersey communities across the garden state remember those who perished and pay tribute to the distinguished service of the brave police officers, firefighters, and first responders who answered the call and in some cases never returned home. today i come to the floor of the house to pay my special respect

to the 81 new jersey families in the seventh congressional district who lost loved ones as a result of the tragic terrorist attacks. to these families i say we will never forget the sacrifices you and others have paid and continue to pay. i hope all americans will pause tomorrow and take a moment to reflect on the tragedy of 9/11. to remember the victims, the heroes, and all the loved ones they left behind while paying tribute to the men and women who serve and defend us today against the dangers we still face. may god continue to bless the united states of america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house

revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for september 16 and 17. mr. jones for september 16 and 17. ms. ros-lehtinen for september 15. mr. moran for september 16 and 17. ms. foxx for today. mr. tiahrt for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey for five minutes. mrs. lowey for five minutes. ms. kaptur for five minutes. mr. schiff for five minutes. and ms. jackson lee for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and

under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent to claim ms. woolsey's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. lowey: as we mark the eighth anniversary of the tragic terrorist attacks on our country, we are reminded of the adage that time heals all wounds. at ground zero bulldozers are laying the foundation for new towers while millions carry on their daily routine. many who lost spouses have remarried, finding comfort in new love. infants have grown into children. and children into adults with thoughts that dwell on the future rather than the past. for this we should be grateful. no one should live in the perpetual shadow of grief.

and yet the wounds are still raw. new yorkers still perceive the skyline of manhattan as maimed and incomplete. we are still gripped at certain moments by memories of loved ones that are unbearably painful. we are still at war, wearing the unfinished burden of rooting out the perpetrators and instigators of evil. and as a nation, as a people, we understand that the innocence shattered on that awful morning eight years ago can never be fully restored. our challenge then as americans is to honor the loss and heed the lessons of 9/11. while also affirming at every opportunities the optimism and confidence that always define this great nation at its best. in this body we do this by remaining strong and steadfast in our determination to confront

terrorists and their sponsors, using the full spectrum of american power as an instrument of justice. we do this by, together with the firefighters, police officers, emergency workers, and intelligence officers committing to the hard work of securing our land against those who would do violence, ensuring that our transportation networks and energy facilities, our ports and our bridges are defended by more than feckless hope. we do this by refusing to give up our liberties out of fear knowing that a retreat from our founding values does more harm to america than any external enemy ever could. and we do this by pursuing the age old american vision of a world lifted by freedom, knowledge, and prosperity in which all men and women have the

tools to build just and decent societies that live in peace with their neighbors. it has been my duty and honor to serve and to serve those goals as a member of the united states congress. in tribute to all those who lost their lives eight years ago, to all those who have lost their lives in iraq and afghanistan and the time since, and to all those whose lives are still shaped every day by memory and loss, let us together commit to upholding these responsibilities until our work is done. thank you. may god bless america. and may god bless all people of good will. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? there is no objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tie quart: thank you, mr. speaker. last night president obama told us that his administration would tackle medical malpractice

reform as a way to lower health care costs. defensive medicine practice does drive up the cost of health care. it's at least 10% of the overall cost and as much as 40% of some procedures. and it should be aggressively tackled. this is what we have been saying on the republican side for years. but who is it? who will take on this difficult task? and just how committed is president obama in taking on medical malpractice reform and protecting medical providers from trial lawyers? a simple google search shows that secretary see billous was the executive director -- a billous was the executive director and head lobbyist of the kansas trial lawyer association for eight years. that's right, secretary sebelius head of the health and human services was a deep political professional and has personal ties with trial lawyers. and has been tapped by the president to go after these same trial lawyers and figure out just what kind of malpractice reform should be put in place. i think this is a classical

example of what we call a conflict of interest. the president has made several publicly embarrassing gaffes recently, and when it comes to vetting these people, i hope he makes more time in vetting her. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to take his time. the speaker pro tempore: no objection. mr. burton: to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: no objection, so ordered. mr. burton: mr. speaker, the president said last night and i mentioned it a few minutes ago if anybody in this body told an untruth about his proposals on health care, he was going to call them out. well, as i said before, that's a double-edged sword because i think the president made a number of misstatements last night that need to be corrected and the american people need to know what they were. one of the things he needs to do is he needs to take on the associated pruss because they have a news article out today that says, obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge.

they point out his arithmetic isn't quite accurate. let me go into some of the specifics. he said last night, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. let me repeat this. nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. the majority leader just a few minutes ago said we really need to keep the public option in. that's what they would like to bring to the floor. let's say they do that. if you are are an employer, and it costs more than 8% to take care of your employees and health insurance, can you dump them on the government plan for 8%. if you're spending 10% to pay for your employees' health insurance and you want to cut your cost, all you have to do is put on the government plan and put -- and pay 8%. there is an inducement for people to go on the government plan, especially the employers transferring them. independent experts all agree that the legislation proposed would result in millions of americans losing the courage

they have. the congressional budget office, this body right here, this budget office, believes several million will lose their coverage. the urban institute says it will be up to 47 million. and the lewin group says it will be up to 114 million. i would say, mr. president, that's not quite accurate. he also said, quote, under my plan individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance. just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. that is going to be what they call a government mandate. and one of his senior obama administration officials, sherry glide, recently wrote that a mandate is in many respects analagous to a tax and furthermore has the potential to be a very regressive tax. penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage. thus this policy breaks the single promise of the obama campaign when he said, i can make a firm pledge under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your

income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes. not accurate. quote, the president said there are those who claim that our reform effort will ensure illegal aliens -- will insure illegal aliens or immigrants. this, too, is false. they would not apply to those illegally. look at their bill t. says nothing in the any of the democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identify -- identity prior to receiving taxpayer subsidized benefits. making the president's promise, one, that the legislation itself does not keep. so that wasn't accurate, mr. president. and one -- here's another quote, one more misunderstanding i want to clear up, under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. and federal conscious laws will remain in place. fact, the national right to life committee among other independent pro-life groups have confirmed that the legislation will result in federal funds

being used to pay for abortions. both through the government-run health plan and through federal subsidies provided through the exchange despite various accounting gimmicks created in an energy and commerce committee, quote, compromise plan. much of the rest will be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. fact, -- i just missed my place there. don't want to do 245. the president said reduce the waste and inefficiency in medicare and medicaid will pay for most of this plan. much of the rest will be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. fact, congressional budget office, our body, has previously found that the cuts to medicare advantage plans included in the democrat legislation would result in millions of seniors, millions of seniors losing their current plan, a