people sent us here to perform and that is to serve the interests of their families and the interests of this nation with everything we've got. i'm with joe. vote no. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from ohio. mr. boehner: we're prepared to close if the gentleman's prepared to close. mr. clyburn: i am. mr. boehner: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. boehner: mr. speaker, over the month of august when members were home in their districts, the american people were speaking loudly. and both democrats and republicans heard the message i think loud and clear. but as we stand here today, i would think the american people are probably looking at us wondering, do they really understand?

the american people are saying enough is enough. enough of the politics here in washington, enough of the spending, enough of the big government takeover, and yet here we are on the floor of the house today debating a resolution that should not be here. putting a man's name in the record books of disapproving of his behavior. the gentleman from south carolina admitted that he made a mistake. he called the president and apologized. and yet here we are on the floor of the house of representatives debating a resolution describing his behavior. i think it's wrong. and i think we will rule the day that we set this precedent and brought this resolution to the floor. i would just ask all my colleagues, all my colleagues to remember what it is we are

doing here and the precedent that's being set. it's wrong. so i'd ask all my colleagues to do the right thing, to stand up and to vote no on this resolution. let's all respect our colleague who admitted his mistake and apologized. let's all respect him. and the way we do that is to vote no on this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: mr. speaker, i would like to close this discussion today using the balance of the time. mr. speaker, the leader, the republican leader earlier referenced the great preacher. his reference can be found in the third chapter of the book who says there's a time and a place for everything.

i agree with that. i believe very seriously that there is going to be a time for us to discuss health care, a time for us to discuss energy policies and education and the economy. but, mr. speaker, the rules of this house provide the vehicle by which we carry out those discussions. if the rules are not honored, if the rules of this house are not their to maintain order we can never get to these discussions and do so in a way that would make the people of our great country proud. the gentlelady from michigan indicated that this is a teachable moment.

yes, it is. this is a time for us to teach not just by percept but by example that which we say to our children, that which we say to our constituents that there are certain things that you do and certain things that you don't do. and when you do those things that you don't do, the proper thing to do is to show proper contrition. not the way you may think is proper but the accepted form of contrition. and the accepted form of contrition when the rules of this body are violated is to come to this floor and to request the apology of these members. and until that is done, mr.

speaker, proper contrition has not been made. my father used to teach me all the time, son, he would say, the first sign of a good education is good manners. i took that to heart. and i would hope that this body today would demonstrate to all of those schoolchildren who are looking in on these proceedings that we are here to demonstrate what is proper decorum for you to follow in your classrooms. we must here today support our teachers and help them educate our children.

silence gives consent. we cannot be silent in this matter because we do not consent to the conduct of mr. wilson. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has been yielded back. and without objection the previous question is put to the floor. all those in favor of moving the previous question will say aye. all those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. 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 adopted. mr. boehner: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. boehner: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule

20, this is a 15-minute vote on adopting house resolution 744. it will be followed by five-minute votes on motions to suspending the rulings on in house resolution 317, if ordered, h.r. 322 and h.r. 3137. 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 240. the nays are 179. voting present are five. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 317 which the clerk will please report by title. the clerk: house resolution 317, resolution recognizing the region from manhattan, kansas, to columbia, missouri, as the kansas city animal health corridor. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house

suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. so many are in favor say aye. opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- >> mr. speaker. on that i vote i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: 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. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 312. the nays are 108. one vote being present. the matter passes. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from new york, mr. towns, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 22, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 22, a bill to allow the united states post office to pay its share of contributions for annuitants' health benefits out of the postal service retiree health benefits fund, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the

bill, as amended. 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 387, the nays are 32. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 388, the nays are 32. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection the title is amended.

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from new york, mr. towns, to suspend the rules an pass h.r. 3137 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will please report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3137, a bill to amend title 39 united states code to provide clarification relating to the authority of the united states postal service to accept donations as an additional source of funding for commemorative plaques. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, rules are suspended, and the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the tainl. -- table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the titles. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 745, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3246 to provide for a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application in vehicle technologies at the department of energy. report to accompany house resolution 746, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3221 to amend the

higher education act of 1965 and for other purposes. . the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. .rinted. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material under h. res. 744. i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor on h.r. 648. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2480 the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff told mike mullen that he needed more troops to succeed in afghanistan. he is probably right just like shin sick ki said we needed more troops in iraq. just as we fail to ask the tough questions about iraq, it is my belief we are failing to ask the tough strategic questions about

afghanistan. colin powell said, when we go to war, we should have a purpose that people understand and support. do we have that today in afghanistan? every time we send a young american over for a tour of duty, we are deciding to go to war over and over again. the question is, does the american public understand and support that decision? do we as a body understand and support the long-term strategy behind the war in afghanistan? or has the people's house gone on auto pilot, deciding to debate numbers and not ask the bigger question of how, when and why this nation should go back. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute speeches? rapet ros-lehtinen request unanimous consent -- ms. ros-lehtinen: request unanimous consent to address the

house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. rapet ros-lehtinen i'm here to support the violence against women act. violence against women is one of the world's wide spreed human rights violation. it is a pandemic that can be stopped but requires dedicated political will and resources. a as long as women across the globe continue to struggle to break through the shame and silence that surrounds the violence, we must continue to put it on every national and global agenda. violence against women fractures communities, deficient states lives and robs the gift and potential of millions of women and girls. it is an issue that demands our utmost attention and our undivided priorities. together, we must copt our efforts to end this scurge on society and turn violence

against women into an extinct crime rather than a global pandemic. only then will women be able to live free of violence which is a fundamental human right. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> distinguished colleagues, the rich heritage of our citizens has enriched the fabric of our culture before the united states of america. from the old spanish forts of florida to today's in los angeles, latino culture continues to be an important part of our national identity. our diversity is the key to our strength and america would not be the great nation that it is without the passion, and ingenuity. the values of our hispanic

communities are those of hard work, strength, character, commitment to family and culture are american values. and entrepreneurial spirit of our 47.5 million hispanic americans is an important part of our economic recovery. i ask my fellow colleagues to join me today as we recognize the beginning of hispanic heritage month and stand with me in acknowledging the american dream one and the same. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request to address the house for one minute. mr. thompson: a man is the best of what is journalism and politics. mayor bill welch passed away at the age of 67. he was named penn state's

renaissance man of the year. after his 1964 graduation from penn state he became a reporter for the "times." a reporter from the newspaper quoted welch as saying, commit to something greater than yourself, do not shy away from differences, seek them out. his work reflected that thought. he ran for councilman and was elected mayor. he wore a hat and carried humor, intelligence and goodwill in everything he tried. he ran unopposed this year and won republican nomination. that sums up his command to politics at a time when parties are polarized, welch was a man of the people and he will be missed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. grayson: it was announced

earlier today that there will be a hearing on h.r. 1207, the bill to audit the federal reserve bank. this will be the first independent audit in the federal reserve's 96-year history and it's long overdue. i asked the vice chairman who received the $1 trillion in funds that the federal reserve has handed out to domestic institutions and said i'm not going to tell you. and the chairman of the federal reserve, i asked him who received the half trillion, we are talking about $500 billion that the federal reserve handed over to foreign central banks and he said i don't know. half a trillion dollars and he doesn't know. it's long overdue. we need to audit the federal reserve and we will have a hearing on that very soon. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. murphy: address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, over the past several years, we hear politicians during debate use harsh words, verbal attacks are rewarded by sound bites and bum in polling numbers and public fundraising. and we look to the next opportunity for a verbal attack but to what end? if there is decor umh in debate there it is in the house of representatives. if we lose it, we lose legitimacy. we are tasked with maintaining civility rather than insult. both sides must focus on changing for the better and set examples for the country and our people. during this session of congress alone, a dozen resolutions have been brought up to attack. our nation is faced with unemployment in record numbers and ailing stock market, health care crisis, growing debt and two wars. that is the work of congress.

that is what the american people want us to address. anything less is unacceptable. let's stop the name calling and shouting. we have work to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there additional one-minutes before the house? for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. paulsen: as part of children's cancer month, i call attention to children's hospitals and clinics of minnesota. there are 12,400 children who will develop cancer before their 20th birthday. children's homents embrace a simple motto, better journey, better outcomes. they believe the more you can help a child by being a kid during treatment, the more likely the cancer will be defeated. children's innovative medical programs treat children with all

types of illnesses. most importantly, children's get results. they are among the best in the nation. finding out a child has cancer is a terrifying moment for any family. i'm proud to recognize that the institution is working so hard to bring new approaches and a unique philosophy to families and is being successful in helping children get back to living their lives cancer-free. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there additional one-minute addresses before the house? for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. perlmutter: for the purpose of addressing the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. perlmutter: i just heard my friend from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, talk about the business that really does involve the house, involve the nation and really the world and it's time to get down to business, stop the name calling and proceed with the difficult chores we

have at hand. i couldn't agree with him more and i thank him for his one-minute. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there additional one-minutes before the house? hearing none, is there additional business before the house? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, mr. poe on september 22 for five minutes. ms. bachmann today for five minutes. mr. miller of florida today for five minutes. mr. wolf, september 16, for five minutes. mr. neugebauer, september 16, for five minutes. mr. murphy today for five minutes. mr. bishop, september 16 and september 17 for five minutes each. mr. deal for september 16, five minutes. mr. price today for five

minutes. mr. forbes, today for five minutes. ms. foxx today for five minutes. mr. neugebauer today for five minutes and mr. thompson today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent today that following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permit todd address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california 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.

mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i request to take mr. jones' place. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. america needs to do a better job of protecting our borders. it is the job of the federal government to do so and the federal government must do a better job of keeping criminals out in the first place. the federal government needs to make sure we deport foreign nationals after they have served their time and after they have been convicted in american prisons. but there is a problem, and let me plain. right now, foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in our country and are convicted and go to our prisons while they are in prison, they are lawfully deported by our immigration judges. that's a good thing. after they serve their time, of course it's time for them to go back where they came from. right now, there are several countries that won't take back

lawfully convicted foreign nationals. those countries are vietnam, jamaica, china, india, ethiopia, laos and iran. these countries won't take back their convicted criminals. these individuals are really people without a country. so what happens to them? because they have served their time in our federal and state prisons for felonies, they are actually released back into our communities. they are people without a country. right now, there are over 1 60,000 of these criminal aliens roaming our nation and our streets. these people have been lawfully deported after they served their prison time, but their home nation refuses to take them back. so i'm introducing legislation that will plug up this loophole. my bill will make it more likely they will go back where they came from. this bill says that any country who won't take back lawfully convicted foreign nationals who

have been deported will lose foreign aid. but china, for example, doesn't receive foreign aid. so what will happen to china is, they will not receive legal visas for their citizens to come into the united states. no more student visas for china if they won't take back their convicted criminals. none whatsoever. the current law says the state department may deny visas under these circumstances, but the state department seems to refuse to send individuals back to their lawfully deported countries because, i guess, china, for example, is a trading partner. and they don't want to hurt the feelings of china. my bill won't allow the state department to ignore that portion of the law, therefore, it will be mandatory if they refuse to take back convicted foreign nationals. that nation will lose the right to come here ellly. we need to make sure these individuals don't come here in the first place, especially the criminal element. all sorts of dangerous things

are coming across our wide open borders. the possibilities of endless walking across our southern border. we know about the drugs, guns, dirty money and the like, but what about chemical, biological or nuclear materials? do we know? well, we don't know. we live in a dangerous world and the criminal cartels that run loose on the southern border are just as dangerous to this nation as the taliban and just as ruthless. right now they're in our own back yard. in texas, we are doing what we can on our own. the governor of the state sent the texas rangers down to the southern border and being deployed in high traffic, high crime areas. the governor is asking the rangers for support. the texas sheriffs are all part of this team to prevent the criminal element from coming into the united states. but our local law enforcement is overwhelmed. so the federal government needs to get its priorities straight. recently, one of my town halls

in august, talking about health care, an individual showed up and people in that town hall recognized who he was. his name was ramos and his wife came just to appear at the town hall. and when individuals in that town hall saw who he was, they today stood, mr. speaker, for over five minutes and applaused the work of ramos and his partner on the work they had done on the southern border of texas. he and his partner were jailed for shooting a mexican drug dealer. their september tenses were commuted, but it shows that our federal government doesn't have its priorities in order. they have them backwards. one of the few things our constitution actually requires the federal government to do is to protect the national security of this nation. border security is a national security issue. and foreign criminals that have committed crimes in this nation

and been lawfully deported should be sent back home. we should do the obvious things first when it comes to national security. if a foreign national commits a felony in the united states and is deported, but the home nation refuses to take bake the outlaw, that country should lose foreign aid and the right to have its citizens come into our united states under our visa program. i that's just the way it is. i yield back the rest of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. moran of kansas. >> i ask to take mr. moran's place. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burton: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm only going to speak for about a minute because i'm going to be a little bit redundant. the last couple of nights we've been talking about the acorn organization and the acorn organization over the past, oh, couple of decades got, you know, $30 million, $40 million, $50

million for their services, quote-unquote. now in the last authorization and appropriation bills they've gotten $8.5 billion and this is an organization that in just the last couple of weeks we've found has been corrupt, they've been ex tolling the virtues of setting up a prostitution ring with young women that were coming into the country or being brought into the country illegally. and it's caught on television, it's caught on tapes. and it's really tragic that an organization like that should have any amount of legitimacy, let alone get taxpayers' dollars. so tonight i'd like to come down here for a minute and say that we need a thorough investigation of acorn and why they have been authorized to get up to $8.5 billion in taxpayers' money for the services that they performed. there's something funny going on here.

and a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been reluctant to move toward an investigation and the white house hasn't said much about this. i think probably because the president was the beneficiary of a lot of support from the acorn organization when he was running for president but nevertheless this should be investigated very thoroughly. we should not have a corrupt organization, knowner to corrupt, proven to be corrupt, you see it every night on television, we should make absolutely sure they don't get one dime of taxpayers' dollars and since they have been getting this money and we have authorized, as i said before, $8.5 billion more for them to be able to utilize, there needs to be an investigation. now the leader, the republican leader of the house, has authored a letter, it's been signed by many members of the minority, i would urge my friends on the majority side of the aisle to join with us in signing that letter requesting an investigation, an investigation that should start very, very quickly. this is something that should be

done. it should not be postponed. we should get to it right away and get to the bottom of why acorn got this money and why they've been doing what they've been doing. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. ros-lehtinen. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for five minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. mr. speaker, on thursday of this week in the u.s. district court of northern virginia and florida, the pensacola division, a principal who served his school district for 30 years and athletic direct who are served them for 40 years in a little school district in santa rosa county, will be carried to a hearing in federal court. so why did 60 members -- over 60 members of congress today sign a letter standing with that principal and that athletic director and against this

federal judge? why is it different than so many other cases? why is it special? because, mr. speaker, it is one of the first times we've literally had the potential for the criminalization of prayer in the united states of america. what was the big crime that this principal and athletic director did? what was the great offense? this school principal, with 30 years of service, asked the athletic director of the school who had 40 years of service to offer a blessing before a meal that was being held for private donors to the school's athletic program. the federal judge for this court has set a date for this thursday and suggesting that they could be punished with a $5,000 fine, six months in prison and the revocation of their retirement benefits. why? because one of them prayed. why? because one of them asked for the prayer.

in fact, mr. speaker, under the order issued by this judge in this court, this principal would not have been able to ask the president of the united states to speak at the school if the president concluded his speech as he often does with the phrase, god bless america. if this action is allowed to stand, make no mistake, there will come a day when the speaker of this house will be hauled into federal court and threatened with jail because she dares to stand at that podium where you stand tonight and ask the chaplain to start our day with the prayer. if this case stands there will come a day when that chaplain is carried to court and threatened with jail because he offers that prayer he's asked to offer. how far we've come from the day when 56 of the greatest americans ever birthed pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend a set of rights that ultimately gave us the right to stand on this floor tonight, a set of rights that have guided this nation through darkness and

through the light. but most of all, a set of rights given to us by the very creator, the mention of whom by this principal or this athletic director could now lead them to a jail term. mr. speaker, tonight we need to ask how far we've come and if we do, the answer's clear -- too far. it's time for americans to simply say enough is enough. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mrs. bachmann of minnesota. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. prayer has been an important part of our country since the founding of our great nation and attempts to take prayer away from the american people are attempts to take away the essential freedoms that have been guaranteed to every american since the beginning of our united states constitution. i thank mr. forbes for bringing this to the attention of this body.

and i share his shock. i share his dismay that criminal charges were brought on behalf of mrs. winkler, mr. lay, mr. freeman, for the simple act of engaging in prayer. as the court explained in santa fe, not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at school-sponsored events is speech attributable to government. there are no students present at either event. additionally, the court held the proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated. the supreme court held that there's a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion which the establishment clause forbids an private speech which endorses religion which the free speech and free exercise clauses protect. in no way were these individuals trying to associate the school with prayer. they were offering a prayer, one at a privately funded event, the others at an event with private donors.

the court held, private religious speech far from being a first amendment orphan is as fully protected under the free speech clause as secular private expression. teachers and administrators, when they act in their official capacity, may not encourage or discourage or participate in prayer with students. however, teachers may take part in religious activities before or after school or during lunch since the context makes clear they're not acting in an official capacity. although schools may not direct or endorse religious activities, students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate. mr. speaker, the problem is that this displays a trend and a tendency that we're seeing where groups like the aclu strike one school district after another, one public display of religious expression after another until they've reached their ultimate

goal which is to purge the marketplace of ideas of any semblance of religious expression. at that point, mr. speaker, we will have turned the first amendment on its head and the founders in turn will be rolling in their graves. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. miller of florida. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. miller: mr. speaker, there is trouble brewing in the small community of pace, florida. a community of less than 8,000 people just south of my hometown and full of hardworking americans where i believe that a federal judge has gone well outside the bounds of the constitution to declare that prayer offered among adults is illegal. that's right. the judicial branch is once again trying to act like the legislation -- legislative branch and in doing so is hindering the first amendment rights of americans.

mr. speaker, i'm not a lawyer and this is not a courtroom, but as a member of congress i swore to support and defend the constitution of the united states and so help me god, that's what i intend to do. the facts of the case are clear. the federal district court, without a hearing, issued an injunction preventing any school employee from promoting or facilitating prayer at any school-sponsored event. that action alone tramples upon the first amendment rights of a specific group of people, denying them the equal protection that's provided under the very constitution that we believe in. the same federal district court has now gone on to prohibit all employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities. the same court now thinks that

pace high school principal frank lay and athletic director robert freeman violated this injunction at a private event with zero student participation, that the court would somehow consider this action to be criminal behavior is simply unconscionable. however frank lay and robert freeman now face criminal contempt charges for praying before a meal that was to be shared. all of this, despite the fact that the supreme court itself has found that the free speech clause protects private religious speech. the supreme court has further gone to find that not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at a school-sponsored event is attributable to the government. as lawmakers, we cannot sit idly by and let this happen. as members of congress, we must act to uphold the constitution and as americans we must fight to ensure that our rights to

freedom of religion and freedom of speech are not taken away. america is a nation of principles. we can sit here all night and argue about whether we are a nation of judeo-christian principles or of secular principles but the fact is that our constitution protects all americans and a court has no place deciding that some americans do not warrant those protections. . the speaker pro tempore: mr. price of georgia. flop the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house five minutes and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i

rise today to address an issue that americans from the time of our founders found fundamental in the forming of our country. that issue is the freedom of prayer as it relates to that right as defined under our constitution in amendment one and i quote, congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the state of florida, two men, including pace high school principal and athl including pace high school principal and athletic director face criminal contempt charges for prayer offering at a private luncheon which no students were present. the right to practice religion is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights. this right is guaranteed through our constitution through legislative authority through the legislative branch. it was judges legislating from the bench that imposed an gin

constitutional infringement to free exercise of religion. this outrageous action was driven by a lawsuit filed by the aclu claiming that some teachers and administrators were endorsing religion in their schools. the school district entered into an agreement that prohibited prayer at all school-sponsored events and all employees from engaging in prayer, prohibiting individuals from praying. the principal and athletic director offered a prayer. it was offered innocently without intent to violate the order and didn't do it to stand against the order. they did not realize the order applied to them in such a way that prayer before an male with private contributors which no students were present. the u.s. district court

initiated criminal contempt proceedings and the two men potentially face, jail time and fines. mr. speaker, this is wrong. i stand with the principal and the athletic director for their right granted under our constitution to freely exercise religion and specifically to pray. and i, mr. speaker, i pray that we return to a time when our constitutional rights to pray is honored, recognized and at the very least, not criminalized. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. ms. foxx of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. this body today has voted by a

majority to disapprove of joe wilson's comment. it is important to always take things in context. and in reviewing the context, we have to notice that we had a president of the united states for whom we pray, as christians, we are supposed to do that, and we do and whom we respect through the office. and he was not happy with the way things were going with regard to his health care proposal. the american people seem to make pretty clear through august this was not something they wanted. so the president basically demanded to come into this house and he can't come unless he's

invited, an invited guess. -- guest. so an invitation was issued to come and speak and he did. under our rules, whether you are an invited guest or whether you are a member of congress, this is where our voteers voted to send us. so we're supposed to be here. the president came in and the truth is, i really had mixed emotions because i knew that on monday, the president had said that -- and he had taken a shot and actually used the l word. he had said -- actually his words were, you've heard the lies. i've got a question for all those folks. what are you going to do? what's your solution?

you know what? you don't have one. it's not appropriate to say we are lying about the proposal when we have taken the only proposal that we have, h.r. 3200 and read from it and then told we are lying about the content and we have no solutions? well, i would never say the president was lying when he said no solutions, because that would infer that he knew that what he said was not true and whoever put that line in his speech should know it's not true. but i won't attach that to the president. but you look at the speech, we heard the speech. he said, instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. we are dishonest because we take the 1,000-page bill and read from it? and that's dishonest? that's scare tactics?

we're told by the president in our house that we're trying to score short-term political points even if it robs the country. we are trying to rob the country trying to score short-term points. that's not enough to come into the people's house as an invited guess and he -- guest and talks about the misinformation. so we're spreading misinformation, he says. he goes on the very next paragraph and talking about our bogus claims spread by those who want to kill -- now we're robbers and killers. and then he said the prominent politicians are cynical and irresponsible and yes, immediately before joe wilson spoke, he used the l word and said it's a lie, plain and

simple. those are dangerous words and to come in and poisoning this well -- he had poisoned the american people. he comes in here and talks about a lie here and says we're making wild claims, these are his words and them talking about demagog ryan distortion and talked about our tall tales. and he says, in fact in reason throwing overboard, we can't engage in a civil conversation. he talks about acrimony. and that's the context of joe wilson's comments. that's no way to act, mr. speaker, when you are invited into somebody's house and come in and use these words to slander. that wasn't being very nice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

mr. neugebauer of texas. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to add to the comments of my colleagues to briefly discuss a court case that may have ramifications on the constitutional rights of religious expression on all americans. the aclu filed a complaint against the santa rosa county school board in florida seeking to enjoin the parties from endorsing and engaging in religious activities, including prayer. the school district consented to the agreement prohibiting prayer. the school district entered into a broader agreement precluding all employees from engaging in all prayer activities. a secretary attended a privately funded event. she asked her husband, who is

not an employee of the district to read a prayer and charged with civil contempt of court. pace high school principal and the athletic director were charged with criminal contempt at a luncheon to honor private contributors. there were no students present. in 2003, the secretary of the department of education issued, quote guidance on constitution alley protected prayer at secondary and elementary schools. they say officials must be neutral in their treatment of religion showing neither favoritism or hostility. there is a difference between government speech which the clause. the court also held that private religious speech, far from being a first amendment orphan is

fully protected under the free speech clause. in its ruling, the court explained that not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or school-sponsored events is speech attributable to the government. the court held that the proposition that schools do not endorse everything, they fail to censor is not complicated. they may not direct religious activities, students do not quote shed their constitutional rights of freedom to speech at the school house gate. yet teachers and administrators may not encourage, discourage or participate in prayer with students. however, teachers may take part in religious activities before or after school or during lunch as the context makes clear they are not acting in official capacity. the circumstances involved in this case have unmasked the agenda of the aclu. students were not present, yet

contempt charges were brought. mrs. winkler was targeted for a prayer her husband read, even though he was not an employee of the school district. the principal and athletic director face six months in jail and loss of retirement benefits because of an innocent prayer said before a meal which no students were present. the constitutional protection of this right afforded to citizens does not stop when they enter the doors of our public schools. the arch clu are targeting small school districts not to protect the establishment clause violations but to stifle religious expression. as john f. kennedy said, the trumpet summons us again to bear the burden of a long twilight schedule. he spoke before an enemy that posed a threat to our nation's freedom. but this case shows that this threat has become a reality here

at home. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmouth, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. yarmuth: it's a privilege to be here with one of my colleagues from the class of 2006, the majority makers, to discuss the theme, what we did on our summer vacations. as everyone knows, it has been a very fascinating few months as we in congress and people throughout the country have talked about how we can solve one of the great problems that this country has been trying to deal with for generations. and that is, health care system that serves every one of its citizens. i, like all of my colleagues in the house, have spent the

greater part of august talking with my constituents. we have had town hall completings. we have had telephone town hall meetings. we met with groups. we met with providers. we met with individual citizens to talk about the problems facing americans, the challenge of finding quality affordable health care forever citizen. and i think what was most revealing to me as i spent all of this time talking about health care with my constituents is how receptive they were and are to comprehensive health care reform once they understand the need for reform, secondly, the direct benefit to them and their families in the reform we're proposing in the house. and third, the relevance of health care to our economic future. president obama in this chamber last wednesday night discussed those very themes.

and he did it in a very compelling way. anyone who watched that speech would have to have left feeling one, we can wait no longer to make major reforms in our health care system. that's the trajectory that we're on now is an unsustainable one, that we are facing extraordinarily high costs for insurance. we are facing extraordinarily high deficits in medicare. and that we have to act now in order to mitigate the disaster that we face if we don't act. . secondly the absolute challenge and i think the national shame that we have that 18,000 americans die every year because they don't have health insurance or access to care, the absolute shame this country that almost a

million people are forced to file bankruptcy every year because they either have no health insurance and they're facing enormous medical bills or they have inadequate health insurance that even though they had it, it was not sufficient to pay for the cost of their care. i mean, this is not what should happen in the wealthiest country in the world, a country that has met every challenge it has faced in its 220-year history. i think the president clearly defined that challenge for us last wednesday night. and then there is the question of how this all relates to our economic challenges. the fact that employers who are now insuring, at least partially, 160 million of our citizens, are going to be facing such high costs, they face them now, and even higher costs in the future, that their ability to compete in the global economy is severely impeded because of

these high insurance costs. we have enormous challenges in this area and again once i met with citizens and was able to discuss with them their situations and their challenges and how what we're preparing to do in the house would address them, they changed their opinions almost instantaneously. i just have to relate one story which was extremely meaningful to me. i was at what's called a district dialogue, one of our metro council members in louisville put on, and there were 35 or 40 citizens there to address issues with him. i was invited as a guest. when i walked in the room i would say that the body language that i saw was, to put it lightly, very cold. and they were very skeptical. because they knew i was going to talk about health care. well, i spent an hour and 15

minutes there explaining the need for reform, the cost of doing nothing, the benefits to citizens with and without insurance and answering all their questions about our legislation in the house and many of the myths that had developed around it and i'll never forget one couple sitting down to my left and at the beginning of the meeting the husband asked me a very challenging question. wasn't quite hostile but it was very challenging and you could tell he was extremely skeptical about what we were trying to do here. and i answered the question very respectfully and factually. about 10 minutes later, his wife said, congressman, let me tell but our situation. -- you about our situation. we're 55. eight months ago my husband lost his job and we lost our

insurance. we finally got insurance, it cost us $750 a month. so they're paying $8,000 a year after tax income, unemployed, $8,000 a year. she said, our deductibles, our co-pays are very high and two weeks ago my husband had to go to the emergency room, i had to take him, our bill was several hundred dollars and our insurance policy wouldn't pay for it. and i said, ma'am, you are exactly why we're doing this reform measure. you are one of the case studies about what's important about what we're doing. because there are so many people in your category. middle-aged individuals who lost their jobs, who really can't afford the insurance that's available to them, if it's available at all, in the individual private market. and while you're paying $8,000

now, under our proposal you would probably pay something like $2,000 a year, could you never be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, if heaven forbid you got a serious illness, the insurance company couldn't take your benefits away and i went through the list of all these ways in which our plan would help this couple. and she looked at me and said, wow, that sounds pretty good. and that's what i found throughout our community when i talked about health care. and it was very gratifying as we went through all of these meetings and we encountered hostility. we encountered passion, we encountered a lot of people who are frustrated at a lot of the things that are going on in the world. but when it boiled right down to it, when you talked about what this plan that we're considering in the house would mean to them their jocxes -- objections seemed to melt away and i think

they began to believe for the first time probably that we were truly working to help them and not to in any way harm them or take away what they have. so i thought my summer vacation was terrific in that regard because i know, i was reassured that we are on the right path, that the american people are receptive to the type of reform we're trying to provide. and i'm energized and look forward to the next few months when we actually retype of our legislation and -- refine our legislation and bring a package to the floor and hopefully deliver one to the president that will accomplish what we've been trying to accomplish, again, for generations. and that's to provide security and stability in the health insurance lives of every american. with that i take great pleasure in introducing my colleague from the class of 2006 from colorado, the great state of colorado, mr.

perlmutter. mr. perlmutter: and i thank my friend, mr. yarmuth. i want to follow up on that. the last few months in colorado as well as every place else in the nation and other places in the world we've been talking about how do we finance health care? how do we finance it in colorado? , in kentucky, wherever it might be? that -- in colorado, in kentucky, wherever it might be? but that leads to other conversations. the health care system touches every life in america. and i can tell you, from the perlmutter family, from my family, the passion really has been evident. because there are some things in this system that are broken and we have to fix them. there are some things in the system that are working but they can be better. and we need to do this at -- in a way that's affordable to all

mirns -- americans. let's start with what's broken. that's something that effects my family and i know thousands and thousands of families across the country and that is the discrimination that is suffered by people with prior illnesses. one of my kids has epilepsy. and if she doesn't have a job where there's group health insurance she's going to be denied coverage or be placed in a situation where the cost of her health care is going to be way beyond her means. thank goodness she has a job where there is group health insurance, but if she were ever to leave that job or lose that job she would be in trouble. and she's like so many other people around the country who face this discrimination and from my point of view that discrimination is just wrong and it's probably unconstitutional

under the 14th amendment to the constitution which guarantees all of us equal protection of the laws of this great country. so there's a place where we really have a problem in the health care system where people who have prior illnesses, prior conditions, can't get coverage or they can only get coverage at prices that are out of sight. now, i don't fault the insurance companies on that. they're insurance companies and they want to insure individuals and people who aren't sick. i don't blame them. that's how insurance works. if you insure somebody who's sick and you know it's going to cost you, then that doesn't help the shareholders and that doesn't help the company as a whole. but that's what's wrong with this. and that's why we've got to change it and i compliment the president and the members of this house who have had the guts

to step up and deal with this issue. because it is a major issue and a major change to policy that we have here in the united states. which is to cover people with prior illnesses. that's number one. and i can tell you, in my district, in colorado, almost everybody thinks that that needs to be changed. so we're deal with something that is fundamentally wrong within the system and it's something that almost every family can understand and relate to because they either have somebody within the family or they have a close neighbor or friend who has some kind of illness. number one. number two, we've got to fix something that every small business and individual -- individuals are seeing and that's the increase in premiums. year after year and deductibles in in-- increasing so that the cost of your health insurance just keeps going up without any end in sight. and so we're trying as part of

this legislation to put some restraints on this so that we slow these increases down so that businesses and individuals can afford insurance. this is part of the menu, the choices that we want to bring as part of the legislation so that there is competition and choice and availability to small businesses and to individuals so that they can acquire insurance so that god forbid something happens medically or within the health of their family or their employees that there's coverage. so we're trying to deal with two very fundamental problems with our health care system today. one, denying people or discriminating against people with prior illnesses. and, two, trying to put some lid or restraint on the ever-increasing premiums that we

see to small businesses and individuals so they have a place they can turn to get insurance that isn't going to break them in half. now, we can improve things that are working and one of those places where we really do have some great success stories and we can build on those is in the research that the country and our medical universities are conducting throughout the nation. we are on the cusp of some tremendous breakthroughs when it comes to heart disease and cancer. two of the things that are so expensive to both individuals and businesses and the nation. so if we can continue to really develop this research and continue to provide resources for research, there is hope and promise on some very difficult diseases that ultimately we can

overcome. and so it's with these kinds of things in mind, righting a wrong that comes about with discriminating against people with prior illnesses, helping small businesses and individuals find affordable insurance where there's competition and choice, and, three, advancing the research that is undergoing in the nation today where we really are going to have some tremendous breakthroughs that will be good for people's quality of life but also for their personal pocketbooks and for the national pocketbook. there is real opportunity here. we have to change this health care system. we can't continue to say no we can't, we have to say yes we can and that's what i want to see as we move forward with this health care debate. and with that i'd yield back to my friend from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentleman and i want to pick up on his conversation about small businesses because this was one

of the very interesting reactions i got when i was home during the month of august and of course i have some experience in that regard as well. i ran a small business for a number of years. we struggled very, very hard to provide health coverage for all of our employees. we had somewhere between 20 and 23 employees as the entire life my involvement -- employees of the entire life of my involvement in the business. they were generally young, healthy men and women. unfortunately we had a middle aged woman who had cancer and because we had that one unfortunate situation among our employees everyone suffered financially because of her misfortune. every year we faced premium increases of 20%, 25%, 30%. we'd have to shop around the best we could. we'd have to increase co-pays and deductibles, things we had to do to be able to provide coverage for everyone.

but it wasn't just the business that was struggling. it was all the individuals, again, all of whom had to pay dealer because of the misfortune of one person. under our health care reform, that would never happen. everybody, every small business, every individual, regardless of their health history or their health situation, would be guaranteed the lowest rates that anybody else could find. . this should not affect other people and the misfortune through no fault in this particular case, this woman, should not put her in the situation of being discriminated against. so the gentleman is absolutely right. we had a session back in louisville during the break and we invited 20 to 25 small business people because we wanted the opportunity to talk with them to get their questions, because, you know, a lot of the discussion of this

bill, there is going to be a huge employer mandate and impose a huge tax on small businesses and when people hear those headlines get very concerned, understandably. we met with this small group of business people and what we found was exactly the situation that i described with my prior experience with small businesses. every one of them facing annual increases of double digits, sometimes approaching 30%. just today, for instance, i had a small business in the office. they're paying now $7,200 per person forever one of their employees. they have about 35 employees. their quote, renewing their policy, 30% increase. that would go to $2.5 million. the increase alone would add $750,000 to their expense to keep the same level of coverage

for their employees. i don't know many businesses that can experience a 30% increase in any part of their cost structure and survive. and that's what all these small business people were facing. and one of the things we talked about, they said, well you have an incentive in this bill. if we're covered and most small businesses aren't because we exempt 95% of the small businesses from the employer mandate, but if i'm over there, why wouldn't i just drop my coverage and put my employees into the public market, the exchange that would have choices, but would give up their coverage with me. i said you know what? you might very well have the financial incentive to do that. it might make sense for you to do that. your employees may be better off, because under our plan, they'll have far more choices

than they will under your plan. they don't have a choice under your plan. whatever you can goisht under your group, they're stuck with that. may not be the provider network they want. may not have the terms they want. they're stuck with it. under our plan, if you decided to drop your coverage they could shop in the exchange and pick the plan that fits them best and because of the subsidies that we provide, they are probably going to be out of pocket less money overall than they are with you. it's not necessarily a bad thing if you would drop your coverage. and they said, that's interesting. i said furthermore, under our plan, if you get someone who is -- has a high cost of insurance as someone who has a cancer or condition that puts them at a disadvantage, they're not necessarily locked in -- they're not job locked at all.

if they had to go and shop in the private market, they might not have to -- if you drop the coverage under today's terms, they probably would have to go to work for a big company. mr. perlmutter: one of the stories that i came across when i was home a couple weeks ago and this occurred at my neighborhood filling station where impumping gas because i have to go to a couple of events on a saturday morning and one neighbor came up and said and he was on the other side of the pump, he said this health care thing, i want you to go slow and make sure this thing is financially sound. and as he was saying that. the neighbor who was pumping gas at the island just behind me, came over and said, ed, you guys aren't doing enough and aren't going fast enough. so the two of them while i'm

pumping gas having this conversation. both of them have very, very legitimate points. and we need, as we go through this to make sure this is as financially sound and we try to predict as much as we can on a an ongoing basis, but we do know there are problems with the system. we do know that we pay as a nation a lot more than almost any other industrialized country around and competitively that puts us at a disadvantage. so we know we have to do something. but the gentleman who said we're not going fast enough was a young father, i think probably 35 years old, works for a roofing company. he'd like to start his own roofing company, but he can't because his wife has krone's disease.

and because she has that and if he were to set out off and go on his own, which is what we want to do in this country and it's the opportunity that this country provides so many people, but he can't because of his wife's medical condition and the probability he won't be able to get anything to cover her if he sets out on his own. so the two -- these two gentlemen, both of whom are neighbors of mine, had this great conversation, both with legitimate points, but there is an urgency here. and there is a restriction on people really going and doing the american way and setting out on their own to see what they can do for themselves and their family and ultimately for their community and this nation. so i clearly had a conversation where the system today prevents

entrepreneurship of young men and women who really want to try some new opportunities for themselves and their families. with that, i yield back. mr. yarmuth: another case just like that. i was at an event that actually was an event absoluting many of the benefits of the summer jobs program that we provided as part of the recovery act. and as i walked out, this was basically -- it was where youth build homes and they are from the at-risk population, give them jobs and training. i walked out at this construction site and here was a young man in his mid-30's and he said can i talk to you about my situation? i said absolutely. he said my wife and i pay for the two of us plus our one child $900 a month premium.

so that's almost $11,000 a year. and i said your employer pays part as well? he said, oh, yeah, the $900 is my part and my employer pays more. i don't know what the policy costs, but it was a lot of money. and he said i have a pre-existing condition. he said i have a bad allergy situation i have had all my life and i can't get insurance in the private sector. i would love to go out and start my own construction company, but i'm locked into this job, locked into this job because of health care because i would be stuck without it if i had to leave it. and interestingly enough, he really, he was not supportive of what we were doing at the outset. he said i really wish you wouldn't do this. i don't like the federal government getting involved in coverage, all the standard

arguments we hear sometimes. and again, he was someone whose problems with health care would have been solved, whose ambition to form his own company would have been restored. and yet, he was still kind of blinded by a lot of the rhetoric that's out there. i comforted him some in the conversation. but these stories are found throughout the country. we know that there are so many thousands and thousands of people who are in this situation. and this is the type -- this is the type of situation which has i think motivated all of us to work so hard to create reform that will be meaningful for the american people. back to the small business issue, we spent two hours in this meeting with the 20, 25 small business people answering all their questions. and at the end of the meeting, about half of them said go get

it. go get it. go for it. we're with you. there are two or three holdouts who don't think the federal government should get involved in anyway. we will have to ask them when they're eligible for medicare if they feel that way. these small business owners understood that this is something that would free them from a problem that they had been trying to work out. so when you work it through, whether it's senior citizens or young families with a situation where one of them might have a pre-existing condition or small businesses, this is exactly what we're trying to do, to create the opportunity forever american regardless of their condition to have access to affordable health care. and you did make reference to kind of the global situation, my colleague, mr. perlmutter, talked about the fact that we

are the only industrialized nation in the world does not provide a certain level of benefits, guaranteed health care benefits and we spend twice as much per person as any other country and much larger percentage of our gross domestic product than any other country does. we spend about 17%, 18% g. dmple p. on health care. the next highest is 11%. we do have some of the best health care anywhere available, it's not just available to enough people. and because of that and because of the fact that many people have virtually no health care and have no insurance and get very hill care, we have poorer outcomes in this country even though we spend so much more. the world health organization ranks us 37th in the world and their entire picture of health care outcomes, which includes mortality, life expectancy, we

are 37th in the world and that is something that should be a motivation for all of us to do better. because, again, america has always been the problem-solving nation. whenever we put our minds to it and our collective will, we have been able to solve any problem that confronted us. and i know, people say, we don't want to be canada, great britain or japan, whatever it is is, we don't have to be those countries. we aren't those countries. we can do better and create a health care system that is uniquely american and provide stability to every american citizen because that's what we're all about. before i yield back to my friend , it's interesting as we talk about the world situation and we have to confront issues like the myth that illegal immigrants are going to be covered under our

bill. we know there are people out there who will say anything to undermine this effort. but to me, the discussion about illegal immigrants is intriguing because on the one hand it's very clear in section 246 that no undocumented aliens will receive federal payments under this plan. and then the opponents say, well, they'll still have access to care in the emergency rooms, because president reagan pushed for a law that requires hospitals and emergency rooms to treat anybody who comes there without regard to insurance or citizenship. what's intriguing to me that people don't necessarily take the next step, which is to ask, for instance, do you really want doctors and nurses in the emergency wroom to be worried first about -- room to be worried first about someone's citizenship when you are lying on a stretcher when you are

mortally injured, has a serious disease or coronary, do you want the doctor or nurse to say, wait a minute, i have to check your citizenship before i can treat you? and people don't think about the fact that it's not just they're going to check, they would check hispanic citizens or hispanic people who came to the emergency room or asian people. they would have to check everybody. they would have to check everybody who came in. they would have to check senior citizens who came in with grave illnesses. so we don't necessarily think through that. and the opponents would also say, well, they can still buy insurance if they pay for it. and the answer, of course, is yeah, and why is that a problem? wouldn't you want people to have insurance rather than going to

the emergency room where all of us subsidize their care. if they are an illegal immigrant and can afford insurance, wouldn't you rather have it if they're in school next to your kids aren't spreading a contagious disease and get the health care they need? some of the arguments don't hold water once you think through them and understand that health care is a very special category in society and in humanity. and i'm amused when we say, well, they can still -- illegal immigrants can still get care. i think we want them to still get care, but there's nothing in the legislation that we are proposing or that's being proposed in the senate said, nothing in that law which would add a benefit, a federal benefit to illegal immigrants. and that is clearly spelled out. .

it takes a lot to work through these arguments, but it's worth working through them. once you do, again, people feel much more comfortable and supportive of what we are doing. i yield to my friend. mr. perlmutter: my friend, mr. yarmuth, mentioned medicare. one thing that -- where there's been another myth is there are going to be cuts in medicare or things like that. in fact it's just the opposite. there's additional benefits. one of the benefits that is very important i know to my district and certainly when i was out talking to people was getting rid of the doughnut hole in prescription drug costs so that if you get to a certain level all of a sudden instead of the medicare benefit paying for it now you've got to pay for it out of your pocket. many people run into this and it is financially just difficult and in some cases devastating to them because of this doughnut hole. and this bill part of it is to eliminate this doughnut hole so

that the benefits cover prescription medicines. i think the bottom line here for me is that the status quo is not an option. that there has to be real change to the way this system operates. for individuals who are discriminated because against because of their physical health and conditions to small businesses who see the costs going through the roof and to the nation that sees its costs going through the roof. we can't stand idly by. we can't allow failure to reign . we must act. and it's a difficult subject. it's a very complicated system. and it touches 300 million people across this country. so everybody has a perspective on it. but looking at it in the whole and trying to deal with it as a whole, we must make changes.

and that's what i hope will occur over the next few months here in this house of representatives and in the senate and ultimately signed by the president so that we can get on with this and start making the changes that are so desperately needed before the system continues to get worse, premiums continue to go higher, people who shouldn't be discriminated against are. we need change and i'm readier for it now. with that i yield whack to -- back to my friend. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentleman. it's important to re-emphasize the point that mr. perlmutter just made is that this is an incredibly complicated endeavor. that's one of the problems we have in terms of communications effort that there are so many things that need to be explained. as i have described it before, this is the biggest rubics cube anyone has tried to solve. there are so many moving parts. one of the things i have heard from a number of people in my

district, why don't you do it piece by piece? why don't you do it incrementally? the answer is, of course, that because of the system we have in this country, you can't really approach this problem piecemeal because you could say, for instance, we are going to address the problems in medicare, you could do that, and then -- or you could say we are going to address the private insurance system. the problem is that they use the same provider networks, the same doctors, service, the private system anti-public system, medicare, medicaid. the same hospitals service them. the same home health care companies, the same skilled nursing facilities service both. so there is so much cost shifting now going on so that because medicare pays less to providers, they charge private insurance companies more which drive rates up. they are always trying to balance their overall business, the provider network, with the

compensation they get or reimbursement from both sides. unless you deal with it holistically, are you going to basically push the finger in one side of the balloon and push it out the other end. we know that game. incrementalism while it might be desirable, it might be easier to achieve a comfort level in the country because people might be able to digest what we are proposing to do a little bit better, the fact is that reform that doesn't touch all of these areas is not going to be effective. and we will just distort the system even more and probably have more and more people fall through the cracks. so nobody said this was going to be easy. i think teddy roosevelt 100 years ago who talked about providing universal health care and we are still struggling with a way to bring health care to all of our citizens. but we can do it, it's important work. i don't think there's anything that we will ever do in this body, at least domestically, that will be as important as

this effort. as i look around the world and see what other countries have done, see both the positive aspects of many conterrorist system, some of the -- countries system, some of the negatives, i don't think there's anywhere else in the country where i would say we can take that system and plop it down in the united states and it would be the persist tell for us. there are elements of everybody's system around the world that could be useful and again creating that uniquely american solution. there's a new book out called "the healing of america" by a "washington post" journalist and he traveled around the world examining the health care systems. he said there are three universal laws about health care reform, or health care around the world. one is that no matter how good the system is for so many people, for as many people as possible, some people will always complain about it. secondly, doctors and hospitals will always complain that they

are not being paid enough. and the final point was, the last reform always failed. so we are in an imperfect arena, and we know that whatever we do here in this congress, hopefully this year, will be far from perfect. we know that we will be working on this for as long as we are all alive because there will be thousands of unintended consequences and unpredictible consequences of what we do. but as my friend said, we have to start somewhere. and this is the time because we are looking at a very, very bleak picture moving forward with tens of trillions of dollars of added debt in medicare, with insurance premiums that are projected to increase by $1,800 a year a year for the next 10 years for a family policy which would take it in the range of $30,000 by the end of the next decade, and we know that that the american economy, certainly not american businesses, and definitely not american families, can afford that type of cost.

so this is the biggest challenge, but also the biggest opportunity we have ever faced in this country and i'm so glad not just being in congress, being able to work on this incredible endeavor, but also that the american people are so engaged in the process because when the american people pay attention, the american people will respond. and they are responding with their input, with their reactions, and i think ultimately they will respond with their wholehearted support of the reform that we are engaged in. i would just offer the floor to my colleague if he has any closing remarks. and then we'll surrender our time. mr. perlmutter: i thank my friend. i thank for him hosting this hour. for me the status quo is not an option. we have to act. because there are things in this system, the health care

system, the way we finance it through -- we need insurance reform because there are things that are broken. we need to fix what's broken. we need to improve what's working. and we need to make -- have a system that is affordable and accessible to all americans. now is the time to act. we can't fade into the woodwork and hope this all makes itself better. sometimes you have to tackle tough subjects. and people aren't going to be always right in line with you. now is the time for us to tackle a very tough subject, to bring the change that's needed for generations to come, to save money and provide care for individuals, for businesses, and this nation. with that i yield back to my friend. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentleman. and thank him for his participation tonight. as i said a minute ago, we are

involved in an incredible historic endeavor here and i am very appreciative of the fact that we in the class of 2006, the majority makers, most of whom campaigned on a platform that included affordable quality health care for all are able to participate here with the cooperation of the american people. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. perlmutter: move to

adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. %

>> good afternoon, everybody. i appreciate everybody being here on short notice. we will have a quick briefing to talk about the announcement the president made in his remarks in ohio today about some national standards related to fuel efficiency and emissions for vehicles. joining me today is lisa jackson and secretary lahood from the department of transportation. they'll make some opening remarks and open it up for questions after that. ms. jackson. >> hello everyone. first hello to secretary lahood and his team and my own team from e.p.a. we met here with president obama, auto makers, auto workers, governors from across the country and others to announce a historic agreement about the future of our automobile industry. that announcement was a

directive to get to work and we are ear here today to announce the next step to announce the historic agreement. e.p.a. is proposing a new national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and significantly improve fuel economy from cars, s.u.v.'s and small trucks. this marks a significant advance in our work to protect health and the environment and move our nation into the sustainable energy-efficient economy of the future. the groundbreaking standards require an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon in the year 2016. that standard will reduce oil consumption by estimated 1.8 billion barrels and prevent greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 950 million metric tons and at the same time save consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs. this proposal emerges from an unprecedented coalition, one formed of diverse groups with a

range of different and often competing interests. under president obama's leadership, we brought together people who, in many cases, had spent the previous decade at odds with each other over this very issue. we saw and discovered common ground and built a path forward that is win-win for our health, our environment and for our economy. auto makers will be able to build a single national fleet that satisfies requirements under both federal programs and the standards of california and other states. that ensures that the car of the future will be built by american workers right here in the united states. consumers will be able to keep their money in their pockets put less pollution in the air and reduce dependence on imported oil that sends billions of dollars out of our economy every year. overall, consumers would save

more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of a model year 2016 vehicle. the majority of u.s. consumers would start seeing immediate savings of roughly 130 to 160 a year from lower fuel costs and the new standards will conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil, significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil. that will protect us from oil price spikes that shook our economy last summer. along with more money in their pockets, consumers will have a stronger, more stable economy. and every american will benefit from having less pollution in the air, especially our younger americans who are more vulnerable to smog and other pollution in the air they breathe. and over the long-term, they are the ones who will face the effects of global climate change. the reductions will be equivalent of taking 42 million cars off the road. i'm very proud to note this

partnership of workers, american auto makers, government officials and others have come together to establish the nation's first ever national greenhouse gas standards and i'm glad we can all take credit for this historic step forward in confronting global climate change and serves as evidence that we don't have to choose between our economy and our environment. the program is designed to ensure cleaner, more sustainable transportation sector for america. the new standards are aggressive and achievable and ensure that consumers have a full range of vehicle choices. we're also factoring in necessary flexibilities and lead times to allow for technology improvements and cost reductions without compromising overall economy and fuel objectives. that translates into tremendous benefits for the american people. i'm happy to introduce our partner this effort secretary transportation, ray lahood.

>> i'm delighted to join administrator jackson to improve energy security. the program we are proposing today would bring our nation a step closer where the vehicles we drive help us to solve our energy and environmental challenges rather than contribute to them. economically and socially, we cannot continue down the path where the united states is so dependent on oil. it's time for us to break away and take control of our own destiny. that's exactly what we propose to do today, putting millions more fuel-efficient cars, s.u.v.'s and small trucks on the road is a huge step forward. as administrator jackson said, consumers would reap the benefits by spending less on fuel. and we would enjoy cleaner air and healthier environment thanks to a significant reduction in pollution and greenhouse gas emission. this move would unleash a new era in the automobile industry.

to meet the proposed new fuel efficiency standards, auto manufacturers are likely to introduce all sorts of innovation such as new kinds of transmission and tires, new start-stop technologies and more efficient air conditioning systems. we're confident this program will open the door to more widespread use of hybrid vehicles, clean diesel engines and other alternatives to traditional gas-powered engines. i'm proud the department of transportation is a part of this historic partnership involving the administration, the automobile industry and other stake holders who care deeply about energy security, the environment and the future of the country. together we're going to make america greener and cleaner and usher in a whole new september try of automobile innovation and manufacturing. thank you. >> we'll open it up to a couple of questions. >> i'm confused, because you

talk about $3,000 over the lifetime of a car, but somebody is saving $160 a year. explain the numbers a little bit. >> $3,000 is someone who buys a model year 2016 car. that's looking into the future knowing what the standards will be and saying what will you save because of the increased gas mileage over what you have available to buy today. the other number, 160, is the estimate of savings on average for the american consumer starting with model year 2012 and realizing that of course, not everyone will go out as much we would like and buy a new carrot first day of that model year. so that will phase in over time. >> how soon auto makers have to comply with this? 2012 is the first model with 35 miles to a gallon? >> 35 in 2016.

>> it's been a few months since the president laid out the broad strokes, the proposal you are putting out in some detail now. during that period, two auto makers have filed bankruptcy. has there been any consideration given or how much consideration has been given during that period to the effect of the cost impact this might have on those ailing auto makers? >> i would note since we were involved with it, in less than 30 days, automobile manufacturers sold 700,000 cars in the united states. ford has called back workers to begin building new automobiles. gm has called back workers to build new automobiles. i think the automobile industry was thrown a lifeline with the clunkers program. and when you sell 700,000 cars in less than 30 days, that means that new cars need to be built and we've worked long and hard with our friends at e.p.a.

to get where we're at today and we also worked with the automobile manufacturers through the clunkers program to make sure they could sell cars. >> what do you say about the fact that this regulation will grant smaller auto makers less stringent to meet in the first few years of the program? >> sure. you know, this regulation, one of the reasons we are so proud and why we work so hard, it melds the best of the authorities that this already has and e.p.a. foresees possibly having under the clean air act. and we have to recognize that yes smaller manufacturers are given flexibility for 25% of their fleet over the years up until 2016 to be slightly less fuel efficient than the overall standard. that was an effort to get them to do something. and the 75% of the fleet will be brought up to standards, other wise they could

potentially have not made any changes at all, because rules allow them to pay a penalty, which is more economical in some ways because they don't sell as many automobiles. we recognize we had to give a little bit. by 2016, we will have caught up in all autos sold in this country will have to meet the standard. >> the cars that are currently sold in the u.s. meet the 2016 standards, but can you break out the standards and how will this apply to small cars and s.u.v.'s. >> we will be happy to provide that to you. i don't have it with me today. >> will this lead to fewer s.u.v.'s and light trucks being driven by americans. >> this is a standard across trucks and automobiles. so, you know, i think we'll wait and see.

time will tell. i don't know that anyone knows the answer to that at this point. >> how do you respond to critics who say when gas prices say low that consumers aren't going to buy the more fuel-efficient cars and the incentives to give, such as a rebate system or long-term tax gas increase to get consumers to buy these cars? >> i don't know anybody who thinks that oil prices and gasoline are going to stay low, particularly by 2016. we know that gasoline per gallon will be higher in 2016 than it is today. and we also know that fuel-efficient automobiles are wildly popular with people. and i think thaffer people -- look in the different modes that we deal with, people are tired of paying higher prices.

and it's not going to go down by 2012 or 2016. >> one of the things the president made clear is that this program as we developed together should preserve america can's ability to choose a car. and there are needs that are going to vary depending on what they do, where they work, family size. the good news about this program is it gives regulatory certainty, which is always something business asks us for, but gives them the ability to make changes over time and i'm with the secretary. i don't think we know right now how cars will change in their entirety. what we have said is, here's the standard you have to meet. go ahead and make a product people want to buy and meets their needs and that's what car companies do best or hopefully should do best. >> is there an incentive on the consumer side? >> we want to implement these

standards and see how they work and then look at what the price of a gallon of gasoline is. >> you said that cash for clunkers program throughout the lifeline for the dealerships. what's the status for repayment? >> we have paid out $2.5 billion as of today. we have 5,000 people processing the remaining applications. all dealers will be paid by or before the end of september, probably before. we're down to the last applications that are deficient and we want to work with the dealers to make sure that their applications are correct so we can pay them. >> how many dealers who say they wished they never got involved in the program. they said they have put out half a million dollars to front this program.

you say it has been a lifeline. how has it been a lifeline? >> this is a wildly popular program. no where in the history of any stimulus opportunity -- you look at any stimulus program that's been enacted since i have been a part of the president obama team, 700,000 cars sold in less than 30 days. you ask any salesman in the show room if they sold a car in january, february or march. they will say no. you ask people who run scrap yards, they have now vehicles that they can sell used tires, used batteries, oil pumps, water pumps. go to any credit union or bank that has financed these, there are a lot of loans that would have never been made and then ask state and local government who collected sales tax on the sale of these. this is a win, win, win, win

for our economy for the automobile industry, for the little people who work in the industry, who sell cars, who are mechanics who practically were out of work and every dealer will be paid on or before the end of september, $3 billion. >> do you think the administration -- >> you know, i'm going to leave that up to congress. >> another question. you mentioned the clean air act authority and you have been sending preliminary work over to o.m.b. regarding carbon regulations, including for p.s.d. are you laying the groundwork for carbon regulations should congress not act on climate change legislation? >> i prefer to frame it as e.p.a. will continue to do its job, which is to respond to the now two-plus-year-old supreme court ruling that e.p.a. needed to make determinations about

whether or not the clean air act authorities apply to greenhouse gases and that's based on whether greenhouse gas is endanger public health and welfare. today's announcement is about automobiles and it's path breaking. if you would have said two years ago, i wouldn't have put money on it. but it is the beginning of regulation that we should >> some of the work you're doing right now. >> i had said before that i hope it doesn't come to pass. i believe that legislation is the preferable route. it allows for comprehensive, economy-wide discussion of the issues that are going to make

for a successful program. the clean air act is a strong and extraordinarily successful piece of legislation. it has made huge differences in air quality in our country and we have an obligation under the law based on the supreme court ruling to continue to do our jobs and that is what we'll do. i believe strongly that that job can be done in a way that is reasonable, that complies with all administrative requests. >> following up on that last question, some of these regulations on factories and buildings and so on need to be in place when the car rules are finalized. are you going to propose those in concert with this or sometime in the next few days? >> i'm sorry -- >> the p.s.d. rules of those things? are you going to propose those in the next couple of days or perhaps later today. >> got it.

i can only make the news to say unless something drastic happens, nothing more, but i think it is not a secret that there are rules that we have worked on that. we are working now with the white house through a review process on. so i have no announcement to make with respect to any additional rules today. >> this proposal doesn't address the growth in vehicle miles traveled. does the administration have policies aimed at that? >> i don't want to get off message. >> anything with respect to highway fatalities? do they go up? >> look it. we've really -- safety is the number one priority at d.o.d., trains, planes and automobiles. when we get up every day, we

think about safety. i think between our two departments, we have really pushed the automobile industry by the way, every one of them was represented by their c.e.o. when the president made his announcement on these standards and we are going to push very hard on safety. safety has to be uppermost in the minds of people who build any kind of a vehicle that they're going to ride in, whether it's a train, plane or automobile. so we're going to push the industry on this. it's a priority. >> sometimes that means fatalities go up and you often estimate that. >> it's going to be up to the automobile manufacturers to decide the weight and how they're going to meet these standards and i'm going to guarantee you, they are going to be concerned about safety. they want to build cars that are safe because that's one of the things that people look at when they buy an automobile and

we will push them on that also. >> thanks, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house voted today to admonish representative joe wilson for saying "you lie" during the president's speech last week. the vote was 240-179. we'll have the house floor debate coming up in just over 10 minutes from now at 8:00 eastern. topics at today's state department briefing include efforts to engage in nuclear talks with north korea and u.s. special envoy to the middle east recent trip to israel. >> it is a good afternoon. definitely afternoon. and how can i help you today? >> you have nothing to say? >> i have nothing to say.

you have all heard the secretary. >> excuse me. i lost my voice. can you give us an update on george mitchell. >> i was able to speak this morning with my colleague and he said they had a good meeting, lasted over two hours. they agreed at the end of the meeting that they would meet again tomorrow. after the meeting with prime minister net net, the senator has probably already met with the prime minister of the palestinian authority and plans to meet with others as well. in addition this evening, he is going to join in a meeting. and he will continue on to three other locations after

being in the israel and the palestinian territories. he's going to jordan, egypt and lebanon. >> could you be more descriptive than good, in terms of the meeting? >> as i say, they agreed to meet again tomorrow. they're still working through a number of issues. that is the word that i was given. good meeting. >> did they make any progress? >> well, i can't say for certain whether -- what exactly came out of the meetings, but they'll continue tomorrow. >> so the answer is no? >> i'm just saying i'm not prepared to say what exactly they accomplished during the meeting. >> did they accomplish anything snr >> well these meetings are going on. >> other than agreeing to talk again tomorrow. >> they will talk again

tomorrow. >> what can you say, why were they so good. what was so good about them? >> as i said many times, these are important talks. we want to give them a chance to succeed and i'll leave it at that. >> the last time you described the meeting as positive between mitchell and the israelis was anything but. can you feel whether they are closer to an agreement than they were a day or so ago? >> we are moving forward. i think the fact that they agreed to meet again tomorrow to continue discussions is a good sign. but beyond that, i don't have anything else to share with you. >> are you saying that it's good that the talks haven't totally broken down? >> no. they're still talking and that's a good sign. >> he was there to try and shore up a deal on the settlement. is it positive that the talks are continuing or not positive

-- >> of course -- >> it's clear that you weren't able to secure an agreement from this meeting. the reason you are meeting again is because you're not in full agreement, is that right? >> they have more to discuss, that's all. >> you said the secretary might be traveling at the end of october. do you have any information about that? >> she has no plans at this time to go to the region. >> is she committed to representing the u.s. at the next meeting of the u.s.-israel strategic dialogue, which is supposed to be in israel? >> i think that has normally been -- that has been -- we have been represent ded at those meetings. >> hasn't she agreed her and the foreign minister have agreed that they be the ones -- >> i'm not sure. >> can you take that? >> we will get you that information. >> she said or -- what was the word? i can't remember, but agreed to

go. can you give us a list of the number of countries that the secretary said she intends to visit other than israel, because i have a feeling it's a lot more than israel than she has expressed that she would like to go some day or intended to visit. >> there are quite a few countries that she would like to visit. she has visited already a number of countries. she plans to go to russia in october for the u.s.-russia bi-national commission talks. there are a number of other trips that are planned in the fall as well. she looks forward to going to pakistan and that region as well, but there's nothing that has been planned yet.

>> do you have any reaction to the goldstone report that came out today? >> we saw that came out today. we just gotten a copy of it. it's rather lengthy and over 500 pages. it has -- it covers a number of very complex issues and very sensitive issues. we want to take some time to digest it completely and we'll review it completely. our focus -- as we can see from senator mitchell's trip and taking the steps to get to a point where we can resume negotiations and regional peace agreement. >> what are the conclusions

that both sides may have committed war crimes during the -- >> these are really -- that's a very serious allege and so we want to look at it very carefully. the events of nine months ago were tragic. there was a loss of life on both sides and of course we expressed our concern about the humanitarian suffering in both gaza and in israel. and these are serious issues. and mr. goldstone makes serious allegations and we want to take time to review them. >> you don't have any conclusions? >> we want to have a chance to look at the entire report. we don't read that fast. it's 500 pages. >> one more?

>> no. no. you're not getting away that easy. >> ian, the state department put out a travel warning regarding uganda. because of the political violence there, do you have anything to say about the trouble in uganda itself. >> actually, dave, i have to say i haven't seen that travel advisory. let me see if i can get you some more on that. >> yeah. >> question on venezuela. we are hearing that the secretary sent a letter to the defense ministers about the arms race. did she send it and what did the letter say and are there any more official communications concerning that purchase? >> i think you saw what she said a few minutes ago after the meeting with president vazq

uez that we are concerned about the plans of venezuela to purchase more arms and we don't discuss the substance of our diplomatic correspondence. i'll see if we have any other information. we made quite clear our position. >> are you working together with other countries in latin america to coordinate a position on this? >> i think we've had a number of opportunities to do that. i mean, as i say, we made our views known bilaterally and made them known multilaterally. the secretary takes every opportunity when she meets with leaders of the region to raise some of our concerns. and in fact, she was able to

discuss these issues with president vazquez in the meetings she had today. >> as to the potential letter, you'll check on that? >> i have to check on that. as i say, normally our diplomatic exchanges are private. >> do you have any reaction to the release today of the iraqi shoe thrower? >> yes, we saw -- >> and his allegations -- >> and we saw his allegations as well. i think we saw that he made some pretty serious allegations of human rights abuses and of course these kinds of ack cue sayingses we take -- accusations very seriously and we trust the iraqi government will as well. his release from prison was done