partnership initiative on a range of specific initiatives aimed at providing training to journalists, civil sorblete activists, political parties on the use of these new technologies. the second thing that we're doing more broadly is monitoring and analyzing. next week, we'll release the annual human rights report of the state department on human rights' practices, annual country reports. one of the things we will do is to review the reporting process and improve and expand on internet freedom reporting, which is an essential piece of what we need to be doing. we're going to make the reports more accessible to people around the world who have limited access to the internet and we're going to increase the capacity off our embassy officers to monitor and respond when there are threats to internet freedom. . .

effectively. last, for example -- last fall when a popular social networking site was blocked in vietnam, we raised the issues with officials in hanoi and in washington. when bloggers in countries such as china and vietnam and egypt and iran are threatened, we speak out publicly on their behalf. this is an important part of what we can and need to be doing. i want to just say at last comment, and it relates to what you spoke about senator durbin in your opening. this is about issue where the government has a role but the private sector also has a role. as you noted, i was involved before coming into government in

the creation of the global network initia . multistakeholder initiative that brings together companies, ngos, academic experts and social investing firms. i think it's really critical that we and you work to figure out ways for companies to step up and take responsibility here. we can't do it alone, and companies acting alone can't make a difference. there needs to be a collective response, and i'm personally very committed as are others in the state department, to trying to find ways to work collectively with the private sector to make a difference in this area. thank you very much. >> chairman durbin, ranking member coburn, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this invitation to testimony on behalf of the department of commerce and the national telecommunications and information administration. i'll work on shortening titles. on the global challenges facing the internet industry, as an advocate of economic growth

innovation and exports, the department of commerce's goal is to is a sort a global open internet as a platform for the free flow of information of goods and services. the department of commerce is committed to our role as partnered with u.s. companies large and small as they grapple with the challenges of operating in countries that reject openness, transparency and the free flow of information. the great innovative energy of the internet is due to the fact that even the smallest u.s. internet start-ups can be reached by users all over the world. with this strength we must also recognize the u.s. companies can become the target of arbitrary foreign laws even if they have no offices in that country. today we'll summarize the challenges we see facing u.s. companies, discuss the importance of transparency.the internet and the update you on the commerce department's activities to support a commercial robe bufrt and transparent internet. let me highlight three major threats that we see very briefly. first, u.s. company, often pressured to blog or filter

internet consent on communications absent evidence of illegality based on rules unclear, unwritten and lack due process or transparency. second, some governments would require that internet service providers to assist in electronic surveillance without due process or adequate judicial supervision putting these companies in untenable situations they shouldn't have to face. u.s. companies, third, risk being the victims of hacking attempts sponsored by overseas criminals, foreign governments or loose knit groups of both working together. in this area, era of globally integrated computing platforms, security threats in one country can put the entire global enterprise at risk. worse, securities become a pretext often for forced compliance with government imposed technically deficient standards, disadvantaging u.s. companies which support global standards and putting the entire internet at risk. unfair treatment of internet users and providers threatens the internet's fundamental modus

ap ran dye, transbarreny. rapid innovation of the internet and applications that run on it. despite recent attention to vulnerabilities in the internet inf infrastructure, we must not lose sight that enables us to communicate through a common platform. transbarrensy at the heart of the internet's suction. looking forward the commerce department will continue its sectionful tradition of developing government industries civil society partnerships supporting internet development. we've been heartened by the global initiatives ongoing efforts. the government must be a full partner in this effort we believe standing up for individuals and businesses when the free flow of information and human rights are threatened. ensuring that the internet is open for innovation and social progress is a vital priority for the department. in the early months of the new administration we assembled a cross department internet policy

task force whose mission is to identify leading public policy and operational challenges in the internet environment. our task force leverages expertise across many bureaus including international communications policy, trade, intellectual and corporate responsibility. work began with developing a new internet privacy and cyber security framework. the task force convened consult aces with major u.s. corporations and innovators across academia and civil society. we've added consideration of global trade barriers along with online copyright enforcement. in the coming months outreach continues as the task force issues notices of inquiry. based on the feedback the task force focuses on these challenges and continue to an administration-wide policy development. in closing from my own experience the internet was created and has grown because of a unique combination of cooperation and transparency. academic and commercial research

you know came together in create and extend the underlying internet technology. at the internet grew it was often cooperative efforts of industry, civil society and government that came together to solve hard social and legal problems. the threats of the free flow of information on the internet are serious. we should look to solve them as much as possible with the unique cooperative transparent spirit that gave us the internet in the first place. i thank you again for the opportunity to be here and for your long-standing attention to this important issue and look forward to your questions. >> thanks a lot. we asked facebook to come, and they replied by saying, we have no business operations in china, or for that matter in most of the countries of the world. went ton say, as a young start-up, our resources and influence are limited. we do not have the resources to devote to gni membership. but here are the facts. facebook has over 400 million users, which makes it the second most viewed website in the

world. about 70% of facebook users are outside the united states. facebook has over 1,000 employee, hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues and is worth billions of dollars. that is hardly a mom and pop flation can't afford to be part of gni, and facebook acknowledges that it engages in censor ship. in their letter, i quote, when consequent shared from a particular jurisdiction violates that jushg dictions local laws or customs facebook may take down that content. mr. posner, it's my understanding facebook recently asked the state department for help when blocked in jeet knap and you responded by raising the ish a you with the vietnamese government. is has right? >> yeah. we have responded a number of companies have come to us, facebook is one of them, and we are obviously trying to promote internet freedom. so we're trying to be cooperative with all. >> facebook expects our government to help in resolving

efforts to censor their service, seems reasonable they accept some responsibility themselves for addressing human rights issues. mr. posner, does facebook face human rights challenges such as censorship that gni would address? >> yeah. you know, again, i don't want to single out one particular company, but i think it's fair to say that companies like facebook and twitter are certainly susceptible to a lot of the pressures that we've seen others face. technology's changing. the world is changing. government are getting much more aggressive from trying to regulate and control content. i think it's a -- >> i don't want to single out one company either. let me single out another one. let's take twitter. in a letter to me twitter expressed confidence they were having a positive impact on human rights. i believe that. they said, i quote, twit sir a triumph of humanity not  technology. helped activists organize and publicize human rights violation but they also face human rights challenges. for example, reports the iranian

government is tracking down opposition activities, of those who use twitter. however in their letter to me twitter declined to join the gni saying i quote it is our initial sense that gni's draft policies processes and fees are better suited to bigger companies who have actual operations in sensitive regions, end of quote. mr. posner, does twitter face human rights challenges that the gni could address? >> yes, they do. and you know, i think one of the things that makes the gni to me an important part of the solution here is that companies are going to learn from each other. there's not one company that's going to have a monopoly on creativity or thoughts about how to deal with this. they need to work collectively, and that's part of what this initiative is designed to do. >> in our next panel, an iranian blogger, a witness today, says, and i quote in this testimony, it was not the iranian government who shut down my

website. it was the domain and host provider in the united states that did it. end of quote. testimony by rebecca mckinnon, another witness on our second panel indicates that the u.s. web hosting companies denied service to political opposition groups in zimbabwe and syria. wrap can be done to ensure u.s. sanctions and export controls do not prevent the u.s. companies from providing internet technology and services like website hosting to human rights and democracy activists living under repressive governments? >> as you know, mr. chairman, the jurisdiction for export controls is shared between the commerce department. we enforce our export administration regulations and other rules that the state department as well as the treasury department. as the services such as twitter and others that you mentioned that don't employ any encryption software on the user end, as far as we understand, those services are freely available around the

world with, from the perspective of u.s. regulations. obviously, as you note, other countries may block access to those service, but the commerce department's export administration regulations do not prevent anyone in the world from using a service like twitter. that is because it's a service that's based on the web. it doesn't require the installation of software. it's also the case that under commerce department regulations, publicly available, downloadable software with inkrepgs can be used widely. >> let me ask about another issue that's related. some commentators expressed concern about the appearance that the state department is too close to some american internet companies. for example, last week twitter's ceo jack dorsey was the member of an deutsche state department delegation to russia. top state department officials used twitter to post details about their personal lives. technology expert says and i quote, the kind of message it sends to the rest of the world

that google, facebook and twitter are now extensions of the u.s. state department may simply endanger the lives of those who use such services in our third world countries. it's hardly surprising the iranian government begun to rescrew all twitter users with suspicion. mr. posner, are you concerned about the perception that the state department is too close to fis like twit around facebook and how can we combat the impress these company, just an arm of our government? >> i think we have to be able to work in multiple ways as a government. the fact that there are these social networking sites or internet sites that deploy or allow information to be disseminated quickly means that they're a tool for all governments and for private citizens. we shouldn't reject that. but at the same time, i think we have to be clear that there's a separation between government and these private companies. they don't -- they're not part of the government, and there are

certain obligations we have to hold their feet to the fire to be acting responsibly as companies. we need to be really operating in multiple tracks here, not deny ourselves the ability to use the excellent tools that they provide, but at the same time keeping the lines clear of who we are and who the companies are and holding them accountable for their own actions. >> senator coburn? >> thank you. mr. posner, you talk about the three things you all are doing in terms of programming, monitoring and analyzing and then responding. and you spoke specifically about responding to two or three different instances, vietnam i think was one you mentioned. what's been the affect of that response? >> this is a long-term and tough subject for us to claim immediate results. it's not going to happen that way. governments are testing the limits, and we're pushing back. i think in the long run we're going to succeed, because i think efforts by governments to

control people's ideas are not going to succeed. people are going to find creative ways to circumvent whatever restrictions governments put up. but i think we just have to be resolute in saying we are absolutely dedicated to as secretary clinton said to a free, open internet, and communications environment. without restrictions, and w@@@@r to the message. >> if we're not in the system we're not going to seed, -- succeed, yes. >> ok. you mentioned the g.n.i. in your testimony, beginen your eneek perspective of the diversity of all the companies that make up the industry that offer internet-based goods and services around the world, do you see g.n.i. as a framework that will fit every one of those companies? or is there the case that may exist doesn't fit some of them? >> from the perspective of the

efforts that we matched at the congress department, our main interest is to be a partner of the g.n.i. it seems unlikely that every single internet company in the united states would join, we'd certainly hope more do. these organizations have to figure out how to create the proper kind of fit between their mission and others who they hope to serve. n and those who they hope to serve. that's not an easy challenge, as you know. but we think it's important. from the commerce department perspecti perspective, we hear from companies large and small across a dmub of sectors of the internet economy. certainly small start-ups may not be able to fully participate in the gni, but we think first of all they will benefit from the efforts of an organization like that, and we look, we are looking carefully at how we can make the trade assistance resources we have available on the ground and in over 60

countries around the world available to those u.s. companies who for whatever reason don't fit as well. >> but you do feel that ultimately they all will have some benefit directly or indirectly? >> i think that if the gni can suck sooetd at its efforts to bring greater transparency and a set of commonly accepted best practices that would benefit the internet as whole. >> what kind of guidance does your department give to u.s. companies offering the internet based goods and services, internet restricted countries to overcome the challenges that you outlined in your testimony? >> you know, i wouldn't say there's a single answer to that question, but as i noted, the commerce department resources working along with state department resources in many countries work on a case-by-case basis to work through barriers that, or misunderstandings that companies face. when those barriers are seen to be too hard to resolve, in individual cases we can escalate those to discussions with the

governments and often to government discussion at whatever level can be helpful in a way that the company may not be able to muster all by itself. this is especially true for smaller companies, for companies that don't have the international profile that, of some of the cases we've seen in the news. so, again, we think that they will have an essential role to play in helping u.s. companies that way. >> are there instances success if you've been able to accomplish that? >> well, very often these are efforts that -- that require cooperation across the executive branch. i point to interactions involving the recent green dam filtering requirement proposed by the chinese government, as that issue was raised to various parts of the u.s. government including the commerce department, the international trade administration, the ustr, state department and others, we were able to have a dialogue

with the chinese government that we think produced results. >> okay. the department of commerce seems to be on the forefront of some of the issues we're discovering, discussing today, bus on the other i was startled to hear efforts to target internet policy changes seemed to have only just begun. is the interagency internet policy task force the first such initiative undertaken by the department? >> the department of commerce's efforts in internet policy go back to more or less the beginning of the commercial internet in the mid'90s. early work was done in the department of commerce in laying out a framework for global electronic commerce in laying out privacy rules and approaches appropriate for the united states. i'm proud to say there's a long-standing tradition at the commerce department far pre-dating our work and we intend to continue that. >> how long before notice of inquiry runs in the federal register to solicit additional outside. s? >> we are hoping to do this in

the next couple of months. >> why can't it be done immediately? >> well, we've been engaging in discussions, a variety of companies, and technical experts and academics to make sure we understand the questions we ought to be asking. we're actively engaved in that and will get it out as soon as we can. >> when does the task force make the recommended to commerce? >> working over the course of this year. we expect by the end the year we'll have recommendations but we'll be contributing based and what we learn in an informal way both to congress department efforts and to administration-wide efforts. we view this as an ongoing effort. >> based on, you know, you have a tremendous knowledge and tremendous experience. is it always going to be possible for u.s. companies to operate in ways that support a global open internet that facilitates the free throw of thfrgs, goods and services even with countries that do not share those values? and how do we get there?

>> i hesitate to say anything is always possible. i think that it will be possible, and i share my colleague's, secretary posner, optimism that we will be able to make progress on this. i think the history the internet has been, that the spread of a rec nation openness is good for everyone. >> powerful tool. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. posner, congress has reserved tens of millions of dollars for funding at the censorship initiatives, just last december your bureau called for a $5 million of this funding. however, as bipartisan group of senators has pointed out, the application required a significant "in country presence requiring the groups developing

anti-censorship software, for example, to actually physically be present in an authoritarian country." i'm no i.t. expert, but the impression i get that software is pretty portable. i also get the impression that it's hard to live in an authoritarian country, or as an anti-censorship programmer in a country like -- i don't know, say iran. why do we have this requirement and is it necessary? >> senator, i think there's been some misunderstanding of that requirement, and i will say we've gotten a range of very exciting proposals from more than 20 different entities. what we're trying to do is create opportunities for people operating in tough, repressive places like iran. to get access to information.

when we talk about presence, we're not talking about having servers on the scene or complicated technical equipment. what we're trying to do is find entities, a range of different groups, who are looking as we are creatively at how to use internet. how to use telephone applications to better communicate with their own societies. so we have -- the field is wide open, and we have a range of different applicants for that money. many of whom are not physically located in the countries that were -- >> the -- in the proposals it says the bulk of project activities must take place in country, and last between one and three years. >> yeah, but when we say that, what we're talking about is, for example -- let's take the example of iran. what we're interested in doing is providing the kind of

training, assistance protection to people, iranians, who are with their own society trying to open up free flow of information and access to information. we're working with a range of groups that are not themselves based in iran, or in china, or in any of these countries. but we're trying to create opportunities for people inside their own countries, their own societies, to communicate more effectively. that's the purpose of that language. >> okay. i'm not sure i totally follow, but let's go somewhere else. the "washington post" specifically criticized the state department for not giving a cent to a group called the global internet freedom consortium, and mr. chairman, without objection, i'd like to add a copy of that editorial for the record. according to the "wall street

journal" these are the guys who develop the software that allowed protesters in iran to communicate during and after the government crackdown. can you speak to the post editorial? why hasn't this group received any funding? >> first of all, the group you mention is one of the 20-some that applied for funding in december, and those applications, or those, that money is now being disbursed or we're reviewing all of the applications. so we'll make a decision in the next few months, and they were open. the competition was open and we encouraged them to apply and they did, which is a good sign. our approach has been that there is not one magic answer to how to circumvent these restrictions nap there needs to be a range of tools, a range of different approaches. we sort of view ourselves as

someone like the venture capital firms in the silicon valley trying a lot of different things. >> this particularly successful and not one that is receiving funding where. >> there are different views about how successful any one of these has been, and we're looking at that, but you know, we're absolutely open to there being a candidate for funding and looking at it very seriously. >> thank you. mr. weitzner, the free trade agreements are negotiated by the united states trade representative, not your department, but i still want to ask you this question. over time our frewer trade agreements have come to include robust projections for workers and for the environment. weren't of our latest fta, a korean fta includes a provision protecting "the free flow of information and facilitating trade" but it only covers international information flows, not intracountry censorship.

and also isn't mandatory. will this administration support a simple mandatory ban on political censorship on the internet in future trade agreements? >> that's a question i'm not prepared to speak to right here but will certainly take it back and consider it. i think as we look at the free trade agreements we have that are being amended and the new ones that are being negotiated, it's certainly appropriate to consider the range of issues that affect the open internet. it's clearly in the interests of promoting free trade to have an open internet and we'll be happy to come back with you and talk in more detail about your suggestion. >> okay. and you've mentioned that you, part of your portfolio is trade and intellectual properties. i just wanted to ask. we're talking about free flow of information and internet freedom here, but i wanted to also talk for a second that as long as

we're considering putting this kind of restrictions in our trade agreements, that will restrict censorship, what are we doing on intellectual property and can we put these together to prevent the countries like china from ripping off our, our intellectual property, our movies, et set virgincetera? >> as you know, a number of agreements have protection provisions in them and there are negotiations ongoing. in other venues to advance that to other countries as well. so it's an agenda that's being activity pursued by this administration. >> okay. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator kaufman? >> mr. chairman i want to thank you for holding this hearing. it's timely, it's important. there's hardly anything i can

think of that is more important than free exchange of ideas if we're going to be success until having a peaceful world over the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years. i spent years in the board of governors and we wrestled time and again with the problem of internet freedom, how you deal with it in certain countries and would like to reinforce what mr. posner said. late '90s out 0 to silicone valley and talked to experts, how do you do this battle and win jn they all to a person reassured us that they cannot block what it we're sending. it's always easier to send message than didn't is to block. like nuclear. you say one two, three four missiles. knocking them down is much more difficult than putting them up. so the key to this thing in the end is being creative and doing more and people will find a way. that is no way, in no way, to lower how difficult it is for people to deal's non-technical people with these different techniques that are available. second thing i'd like to really follow-up strongly on what

senator coburn said. aye convinced one the secrets of this government to government. these folk, going to, if they think this is important, for instance that we meet way country we all know without names countries, there's 20 things we want to talk about. if this is not on the agenda for discussion, they get the clear mfg we don't care about it and far too often this issue has not been on the agenda. not just the internet freedom, freedom of the press. i'm saying in the discussions over sea, if you do not raise this theyi&@@@@@ @ @ h@ @ s @ @r what it means for internet freedom and when we can do about it, both in the state department and the congress department. >> it is distressing to say the least that italian authorities have sought to make representatives, local representatives, of a private company in a sense the censors

of content and, you know, we are clearly concerned about the ramifications of that as it would spread out across the globe. it is obviously -- there are obviously sensitive, the companies have to take responsibility for monitoring the content but this is a company that to my mind was trying to do that and when they were informed about the content, acted appropriately and yet they're being targeted by a government. >> thank you, senator. i'd agree that the case is >> one of the first steps that the united states took in legislating, creating a legal environment for the internet,

was to recognize that if we place third parties in the position of third party, whether they're internet service providers or those who host content such as youtube, if you place those parties in the position of having to figure out what the rules -- what the rules are about, third party content, to figure out whether they might be liable, that the internet would grind to a halt. and i think that it's an issue that i think we tackled early on in the united states and it's one think a hope we can raise awareness of around the world as we go forward. d it's one that i hope we can raise awareness of around the world as we go forward. >> and there, again, government to government multilateral, this could bring the entire internet to a halt, it's not in the interests of anyone to have this happen, and if italy gets away with it, more countries will do the same thing. one of the models i think we should use going forward on this is not voluntary. that is the voice act.

20 deal with iran and the way iran blocks the interin the and the things they do. we have the voice -- has the, the government promoting ways to get around to help folks get around the iranian blocking of the internet, and mr. posner, we're expecting a report soon. can you kind of give me the status of where we are on that? >> as i understand it, the report was a draft of it has been prepared by the bbg, and it's now being reviewed and an inner agency process and i think you should get it shortly. it's certainly under way and i will make sure that you get it very soon. >> good. thank you. is there any examples beyond google what google is doing in china, of corporations taking on charges for internet, on internet freedom that you can think of off the top of your head? some good stories? >> yeah. i would say -- one of the things

that was, again, has been encouraging to me about the companies that have participated in the global network initiative is that they've taken internally steps to do things to preempt or to anticipate problems. so, for example, we talk about google. i'd also talk about yahoo! in the same breath. they have really internally undertaken to make human rights part of their internal decision-making process, and when they've gone into new markets, they've undertaken to review and do country analyses. they know what they're getting themselves into. i think those sorts of steps, while they're not dramatic, are essential. if we're really talking about companies stepping up and taking responsibility, it starts with their own corporate structure, and it starts with their understanding the places where they're operating and taking the time to really evaluate the human rights and free expression risks. so i think that's the kind of

initiative that i'm look and hoping that other companies will follow. >> you know, i think that's a business decision, having worked in corporate america. that's a decision to make, whether you sgee a country clearly you'll have a problem. but you know, many people attribute the end of segregation of the south to when american corporations decided to do away with the good neighbor policy. and i think -- with all due respect, with all due respect, until corporations decide they're not going to abide by the internet freedom good neighbor policy, we're going to be aiding and abetting as we have in the past. regimes from blocking the internet and a lot is being done with a lot is being done with the technology and the companies. i sense that we have to do it at some point and someone has to say i'm not going to do it. one of the slipperiest slopes is when you say if i don't do it, someone else will. that's the time to examine your conscious on what's going on. another interest of mine and i will finish with this, u.s.

companies, what is say u.s. company today with multinational corporations having so many interests around the world. do you deal with the non-u.s. companies? >> i think one of the challenges we face now and the gni will face in their operation is trying to reengage particularly with the western european governments and companies and some of the asian companies. this cannot be a u.s.-based initiative in the in the discussions of the gni, several telephone companies from europe were involved preliminarily and they pulled back. we are keen to get european governments and companies in particular in some of these asian companies as well. this has to be a collective response. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i would like to ask a question

that may retray by early training. i am trying to put in my own mind a spectrum of activity where is it would be most of us would approve of an internet company cooperating with the government. example one is child pornography. we ask for the identifying of those who had access of certain websites which we believe would be the basis for criminal prosecution. example two, people venting political feelings bordering on the suggestion of violence against certain public officials. number three, specific threats of violence against an individual and a member of congress and the president of the united states. number four, involvement in

terrorism working with groups that are literally trying to do us harm. number five, the disclosure of information classified by our government as top secret that may compromise our national security. i have gone up the spectrum, you can see the severity and seriousness of the issue. i don't want to oversimplify what we are doing and saying it should be easy for companies doing business in other companies to know where to draw the line. where does gni come on and how do they draw the line? >> it's an excellent question. probably one of the how farrest to deal with in a practical way. we have constraints against

pornography and supporting terrorism or engaging in violent acts or promoting that. i think we have to use the same frame globally and say there certain activities that the government has an obligation to prevent as a matter of law enforcement. the challenge we face is that the concept of law enforcement and national security takes on a very different coloration if you are talking about the government of iran and the government of china and many others. the notion of national security becomes so overwhelmingly broad that what we would consider protected speech, political speech and criticism of government action becomes under that. that's the challenge. companies say with some justification, we need to follow local law and somebody said there is a violation of national security. we need to be responsive to

that. the hardest question is when do you say no, that doesn't feel to us like a legitimate national security question. you don't like being criticized. that's the world we live in. >> i draw the line. >> to be honest, we had many, many discussions within the negotiation of the gni on exactly that question and those will be the hardest calls for companies to make or for government to make. the good news for me is that there is an awful lot of activity and work that can be done that is short of that. where you are dealing with pure speech and your example of the video, the tianamen square image on google ought to be the same on the google site we all look at. there is a lot of room to be done in promoting free expression where there is clearly a path forward if companies work together, push

the limits and as senator kaufman said we reinforce that. >> thank you. let me try to address the procedural aspect of that question. the substantive nature of that spectrum that you drew out, we recognize has some national variations around the world and we always had to deal with that. i think some part of the way we can come together in an environment where the internet can function globally where these national differences can be accounted for where they are reasonable, but where they don't become overall barriers to the free-throw of information and the viability of the internet is to keep in mind too important principals. i think we should have a basic expectation of due process. national rules may vary but when they become arbitrary, we all have a concern.

that's most concern for the individual rights at stake. by the same token, transparency and predictability of the rules wherever they fall on the spectrum and however that spectrum evolves overtime are essential if we will have a viable commercial environment. companies cannot make these choices by throwing darts at a board and trying to figure out what's in the mind of the governments that have real power over them. i would say if we can stick to those procedural notions of due process and transparency, we have a chance as an international community of evolving towards a set of norms that everyone can live with. we will never close the gap completely, sad to say, but what we have to work for for the sake of human rights and for the sake of u.s. innovation and global innovation on the internet is making sure that we have an environment in which everyone can function with predictability

and stability. >> senator coburn? senator frank? >> i guess i wanted to make this one thing clear for people listening or watching about the situation in italy. i know we talked on a high level about it. basically it is a platform and basically if you are a platform in america, you are not responsible or you can't be put in prison because somebody used your platform to print something that was liablous or something like that. that allows for the free-throw of information where as in italy what happened is that google executives have been prosecuted and convicted, right?

we will have to go to prison because something showed up on their using their platform. i'm only saying this because i wanted to clarify it for people listening. sometimes i think we operate on a higher level here than or maybe i'm mismistaken. people are operating on a higher level than we are. >> i know you have -- hopefully some of both. i don't know. i know you have a witness from google on the next panel and i don't want to speak for them, but yes, i think it's a stark situation. there were criminal convictions handed out and indeed the situation and it is indeed the case that that sort of conviction would not have happened under the united states law because of the protections that we provide to service

providers and platform providers. >> i want people to understand this. i remember when move on had a contest to do ads. it was basically anti-bush ads or whatever. one of the people sent in an ad comparing the bush administration to the nazi regime which was just wrong. you don't do that. the nazi regime is way, way beyond parallel. you can't do that. now, move on didn't know it was up when it was alert. they took it down. i kept hearing shows like on fox saying move on put on an ad comparing bush with hitler. i just want people to understand

what that was and that what a platform is and that we can't hold those platforms responsible for things people put up on the platform. that's all. thank you. >> they can't place those. mr. chairman, i think i will ask you on your comments on legally how we should deal with this. if you go to these other countries and my experience of them, all, not just internet, but all of them, they don't know this amount about public discourse. this is about child pornography. that's the number one. american corporations when you go to them early on in this process and said what are you doing? we are providing equipment to deal with child and you see what's on the air, they are on

the air, you see it and they say we are doing child pornography and controlling security. they use that in these sophisticated countries as why they are blocking the internet. is that fair analysis? >> it is. in fact after secretary clinton gave her speech in january, i talked to several chinese activists. that's exactly the way the chinese government and chinese media were portraying the speech. this is not about free speech. they want to promote pornography. we sort of live in a world where we assume there is a rational discourse about these things. our intentions are being challenged all the time. the notion of a kind of free, open internet is assumed to be for purposes that we in fact would also not prepare as legitimate.

>> is you, senator kaufman and the first panel. we appreciate it and may have follow-up questions and hope you can answer them in a timely fashion. if the second panel would come to the table, i will ask for valuable thing to the industry. let me start by asking the three witnesses before us to please stand and raise your right hand. do you affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record reflect that the three witnesses answered in the affirmative. the first is nicole, vice president and deputy general council of google responsible for company products and litigation. ms. wong, i want to comment and you your company for engaging on

this critical issue. part of joining google, she was part of the law firm at perkins coal. she was named one of the lest lawyers under 40 by the national asian pacific law association. she testified before the subcommittee in the first hearing in 2008. we thank you for joining us again. following her, rebecca mckin on, cofounder of global voices on line and fun toing member of the initiative. she has been a fellow at harvard for internet society. assistant professor at journalism and media study center and worked as a journalist at cnn at beijing for nine years and bureau chief correspondent from 1998 to 2001. she holds a bachelor's degree from harvard college. thank you for being here and the

final witness is a journalist and blogger. he was a rotary peace fellow at the university of berkeley graduate school of journalism and received human rights watch and defender award. he is awarded the golden pen award in 2002. he has been blogging in english and persian since 2002. he has a bachelor's degree from azad university. i know the iranian government persecuted you because you exercised your freedom of speech. thank you for having the courage to continue to speak out and joininginous that capacity. let us start with ms. wong. you have five minutes and your written statement will be put in the record in its entirety. >> thank you members of the subcommittee for your continued attention to the issue of internet freedom and i want to talk about the importance of an open internet.

it's what allowed a national broadcaster to upload daily newscasts on you tube after hugo chavez revoked their license because their opinions were count to his policies. blog reports and photos of videos of hundreds of berm ease monks being beaten and killed even after the government shut down the national media and kicked out foreign journalists. the open internet brought the protest following the protections in iran for all of our attention. even after the government banned journalists and shut down the media and disrupted internet and cell phone service. the continued power of this medium requires a commitment from citizens, companies and governments alike. in the last few years more than 25 governments have blocked google services including you tube and blogger. it's consistent with secretary clinton's research where she cited cases. for example, our video service

you tube has been blocked in turkey for nearly two years now because of user videos that allegedly insult turkeyishness. in 2009 in elections in pakistan, the pakistani government issued an order to block opposition videos on you tube. of course the experience in china where it showed a measurable increase in censorship in every medium including the internet. an open internet that continues to fulfill the democratic function of giving voice to individuals, particularly those who speak in dissent makes each of us make the right choice to support a free and strong government and resist censorship and other acts of speech even when the decision is hard. as google's deputy council, part of my job is handling demands from around the world guided by three principals. maximizing access, notifying users when information has been remove and retaping the user's

trust by protecting privacy and security. no examples received more attention than china in recent months. in mid-december, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack, originate for example china with a primary and unsuccessful goal to access g mail accounts. it soon became clear when it first appeared to be an incident was something quite different. other companies from a range of businesses, finance, technology, media and chemical were targeted. we discovered in our investigation accounts of dozens of users from around the world who advocate appear by 3rd pears. this happened placed on the user's computers. these circumstances as well as attempts over the last year to limit free speech online led us to conclude that we are no longer comfortable sensoring

search results in china. wey reviewing operations there now. no particular industry much less any company can tackle censorship on its own. concerted action is needed to promote online expression and reduce the impact. we are grateful for lawmakers and particularly your leadership who urged more companies to join the network initiative. as a platform for companies, gni members commit to standards that protect user rights to privacy and freedom of expression. additional participation will help them reach full po tegz. beyond the gni, every one of us at the grass roots level should make every effort to maximize access to information online. in particular, government can take steps. first and foremost, the government should promote the openness as a major plank of a foreign policy. the free-throw of information is an important part of diplomacy,

foreign assistance and engagement in human rights. second, it should be part of our trade agenda because it has serious economic implications. it tilts domestic companies and consumer choice. it also hurts businesses in every sector that use the internet to reach customers. thir, our government and governments around the world should be transparent about demands to sensor or request for user information or when a network comes under attack. this is a critical part of the process, allowing citizens to old governments accountable. google supports the congress and administration to make sure people who need to access the internet get the right training and tools. i want to thank each of you for continued leadership in the fight against online censorship. we look forward to working with you to access information and promote online free express around the world?

>> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman for the chance to testify. i look forward to answering your questions along with those of other esteemed members of the subcommittee. after describing how authoritarianism is a dapping in ways that involve companies, i will offer policy recommendations. now authoritarian regimes accept they need to connect to the internet to be economically competitive. they are also working out how to control things well enough to stay in power. regimes like china skpirks ran and a agreeing list of others usually start with at blocking of websites and they use a range of other tactics in greater detail in my written testimony that include cyber attacks against activist websites, deletion of online content by internet companies at government request and the use of law enforcement demands in countries where the definition of crime includes political speech which means that companies end up

assisting in the jailing and tracking of activists whether or not they intended to do so. at the top of my list of recommending as is corporate responsibility. mr. chairman, your recent letters to 30 companies in the information and communications technology sector were an important step in advancing the conversation about how american companies can compete in the global market place while at the same time up holding core values of internet freedom. soon after your 2008 hearing on this subject, google, yahoo and microsoft launched the global initiative, a code of conduct for free expression of privacy in conjunction with groups, investors and academics, including myself. they recognize that no market is without political difficulties or ethical dilemmas. every company, every production, and every market is different, therefore we believe in an approach that combines flexibility with accountability.

fundamentally it's reasonable, i believe to expect that all companies in the information and communications technology sector should acknowledge and seek to mitigate the human rights risk and concerns associated with their businesses just as they and other companies consider environmental risks and labor concerns. next comes legislation. law may be needed to induce corporate responsibility if companies failed to take voluntary action. meanwhile, however, i recommend immediate steps. it should be made easier for victims to take action in a u.s. court of law when companies assist regimes in violating the universally-recognized rights. we need to incent vise the nation that supports internet freedom and revise export controls and sanctions in two ways. on the one hand we need to fix laws that now make it difficult for u.s. internet companies to legally serve activists from sanctioned countries like iran,

syria and zimbabwe. on the other hand, we have to make collaboration with repression more difficult by making it harder for u.s. companies to sell products and services to regimes with a clear track record of suppressing peaceful, political, and religious speech. then technical support. congress deserves praise for supporting the development of tools that help people in repressive regimes get around internet blocking. they do nothing to counter other tactics regimes are using. our support should also include tools and training to help people evade surveillance, detect spy wear and guard against debilitating cyber attacks. tech nichls to preserve and redistribute content deleted from the internet and support for platforms f finally, it's site sy tall we continue to have executive branch leadership. secretary of state quentin's

speech made it clear this is a core american value. in revising the global terrorism value, the government can coordinate between ghovet agencies so u.s. diplomacy, trade, commerce and national security can all support the goal of internet freedom. in conclusion, there's no silver bullet for internet freedom. as with physical freedom, it requires constant vigilance wetch also need a supportive ecosystem of industry, government and concerned citizens working together. mr. chairman and all other members of this subcommittee, i commend you for taking the historic first steps in that direction. >> thank you very much. mr. lombardy. >> i welcome this opportunity

speak on the important matter of internet freedom and i hope that it helps people around the world to have a more active internet and the other means of communication. have more access to internet and information via the internet and the other means of communication. i'm a journalist and the receiverer for the rights of iran and independent nonprofit that monitors iran's compliance with human rights standards. in 2004 i was arrested by the iranian security forces and i was held in a prison in a solitary confinement. i was taken to another prison where hundreds of political prisoners, journalists and activists have been taken and being kept after the june 12th

presidential election. digger my time in solitary confinement, i was beaten and psychologically and physically tortured and told i could not post my writings and should stop working as a journalist. there was no actual crime in my case. i was arrest and abused for using the internet for sharing information. last year the blogger died in detention. when i moved to the united states in 2005, my website had been shut down. don't get me wrong, it's not the iranian government that shut it down. it was a company that provided the domain and host for me. in a letter, the company mentioned restriction on any transaction with iranian companies. later i learned that many prodemocracy and human rights

websites had to change their domain on that restriction and you know it's very easy for the iranian government to monitor that domain. so what i decided to participate in the hearing i talked to many bloggers and journalists and those who have difficulties to even send a simple e-mail or chat on the messenger. almost all of them believe support to give iranians access to the internet is supporting human rights and democracy in the country. supporting security in the persian gulf region and more importantly saving the lives of many people who are threatened by restrictions on information that allow the iranian government to operate behind closed doors and as it violates their basic rights. as a journalist and human rights

defender, i would like to stress the importance of applying the standards in a balance in a plot political way. numerous other countries violate their right to access the internet as the other people today mention. the united states should support compliance across the board. otherwise the charge of holding double standards will stick. with that in mind, i would like to make four main points in my testimony. with relation to internet freedom, the internet sanctions on iran. certain sanctions or interpretations of the sanctions have damaged access to the internet and need to be modified. all mass market software useful for publishing and communications and education should be extended.

second is the european company who is still sell censorship technology to the iranian government and need to be exposed and face sanctions. also online advertising is not allowed for persian websites. many companies such as google or facebook do not include persian or farcy as advertising on websites or allow targeting users with such a language. funding is needed to allow hiring a limited number of web developers in iran. many groups need to hire developers to build their websites. the number of web developers with the persian language is very few. these groups need to be allowed to hire the developers in iran. the amount of payments could be capped to 10,000 per year. they want to make sure such a solution is not abuse for other purposes.

i have some other suggestions in regard to internet access and giving access to activists and using and providing satellite broadcast as you know. for iranian broadcast, the u.s. government dedicated a specific satellite which is hardened against using technologies that are similar to military satellites and providing iranians with free internet. e-mail security which is important and think there companies that can provide those technologies and pc security that is another idea that we can discuss later. thank you. >> thank you. we had a number of witnesses before this human rights chittee who have inspired us to continue our work and you are one of them. you have paid a heavy price for your commitment to your

profession of journalism and for your commitment to free expression. >> thank you. >> your courage to come here today is inspiring to all of us. thank you very much for doing that. i can recall in the not too distant past when my mother's homeland of lithuania was seeking freedom and independence and what kepts us alive in the information that came from lithuania over fax machines. that was the technology of the moment. the soviets couldn't stop us. we were kept up to speed on what was happening and we were able to respond in the global media. technology has grown in so many different ways. it still is the right avenue as ms. wong said for us to seek it and use it to promote dialogue and expression and freedom which

you have sacrificed so much for personally. in the course of your testimony you talked about the european company who is sell surveillance or censorship technology to the iranian government. as a result of u.s. sanctions against iran, u.s. companies are not allowed to sell that kind of technology to the iranian government. do you think the u.s. government should make certain american companies don't sell surveillance or censorship technology to other country on the internet such as china or vietnam. >> it's important to include other countries as well. iranians provide those kind of technologies through a third country. that could go to iran through china or the other countries that have a good relationship with tehran. >> i suppose after the election took place nine months ago there

was an expectation of the so-called twitter revolution in iran would topple the government and change iran. obviously that is not occurring and we have seen the limits of internet activism in iran. can you give us your view of what impact this had and continues to have in inspiring those who question the current government? >> i think it was not the internet, god knows how many more people would have been killed on the streets of tehran and other cities. it is really important that people could dominate the event after the election. it was very significant. >> i think ms. wong made that point as well. i would like to ask you, you heard or saw the instruction hereof google and china and the reference to tianamen square and your company announced change in

terms of censorship in china. can you me what your time table is to accomplish that? if you turn your mike on. >> thank you, senator. it's a very fair question. let me take it directly. we don't have a specific time table. we are firm in our decision that we will not sensor our search results in china. we are working towards that end. we have many employees on the ground. some of whom are very dear colleagues of mine. we recognize both the seriousness and the sensitivity of the decision we are making. we want to figure out a way to get to that end of stopping sensoring the search results in a way that is appropriate and responsible. we are working on that as hard as we can, but it's a human issue for us. >> thank you for stating your

clear goal. i think we are all sensitive to the fact that there important steps to reach that goal that we want to you make in the right way and an expeditious way, but sensitive to those elements. earlier i spoke to the panel, the first panel about this gradation of cooperation between the company like yours and the government. i went through a list of possible activity on the internet asking where we would draw the line. cooperation with the government to stop child pornography. cooperation with the government to dealing with nonspecific politically threatening language. cooperation with the government for specific threats of violence over the internet. cooperation with the government when there is evidence of advocacy and terrorism and cooperation when it comes to the

disclosure of information classified as secret by the government. you are on the firing line when it comes to this issue and the legal questions you have to face. how would google address these and where and how would you draw the lines. >> it was a very insightful observation because it's something we wrestle with and incredibly difficult not only to look at it as a specific piece of content, but to look at it in the context where you are operating. there multiple layers in which you try to address it. the first is making decisions about entry into a market in the first place. about what frameworks of law you had to work with. when you look at particular pieces of content, you try to make decisions based on what you know about the laws in that country. some of which there seems to be almost universally on child porn

as a bad. on the extreme heavy handed censorship. our general solution is to try to figure out which laws are appropriate for us to abide by, given the values of our company and the places where we operate. the 2nd part of the solution is when mr. weissner commented on which is transparency. in every jurisdiction where we are required to remove information, we try to be transparent with the users and the information has been removed to comply. you have seen that in china where when we remove the search results from the property, we put a notice at the bottom of that search page to let users know that information has been removed as required by law. we do that on all of them and most of the services we link to the demand letter that asked us to remove the information. the user can see exactly who requested and what was requested to be removed. >> i would like to follow-up and

ask about two elements. the element of due process in the countries. if you are to challenge a government and their assertion of the right to know the name of the user or to sensor information, do you use due process in that country to follow their laws and the standards you try we do try to use the legal processes within the country to request or challenge demands for user information. we did that in turkey, for example, what that got us is being blocked in tour key for the -- in turkey for the last two years. we are looking at standards based on the universal declaration of human rights. it is along those lines we are trying to ensure the maximum

amount of information. >> if senator franken will allow me to ask one more question, i won't need a second round. ms. mackin non, i find it interesting, we have some people ignoring the operation, what's holding it back? it can't be money. i put the fee schedule in the record here, it's certainly a reasonable fee, $2,000 for a company with $100 million in revenue, doesn't sound like a lot of money, though some use that as an excuse. is there something else you need to tell us, can share with us, about the resistance to make this an american effort or international snevert >> mr. chairman, that's a very good question and a question i've often asked myself, what is holding these companies back? it does seem in part a fear of acknowledging that human rights

is part of their business. that telecommunications and internet companies, no matter how you slice it, have implications for free expression, privacy and human rights. i think a lot of companies are afraid of even having that conversation for fear that people will then hang charges on them of various kinds and they'd rather avoid having the conversation at all. i think what we saw with google, yahoo, and microsoft was an evolution of self-acareness and a real coming out in term of recognizes, it's ok to have this conversation, it's ok to recognize you have responsibilities. in fact if you hold yourself accountable, that this is good for your business. your users are more likely to trust you and that if if you do make mistakes, there's a process by which you can try to

figure out how to reverse them through a group that's trying to help you succeed. the point is, g.n.i. is not for the human rights groups and those like myself to play gotcha with the companies, but to help them avoid making the mistakes by anticipating and thinking through in advance. but the first step is acknowledging that you are not perfect, that you are fallible, that you might even be corruptible as a human being in pursuit of profits and that you need help from society and from a range of actors to help do the right thing. you need help from a range of actors to do the right thing. just as it took a while for industry overtime to recognize they had to have public conversations about

environmental issues, they adhere to labor standards and 100 years ago, it took a certain process for companies to be comfortable discussing these things in public and has been the past few years that companies in this sector have been confronted with this reality and just because you are connecting people to the internet doesn't mean you are automatically going to free them. you have responsibilities in terms of how you are setting up the business and how you are constructing the relationships with different governments and that matters. google, yahoo and microsoft are to be commend and i hope that other companies will recognize that this is essential to their

credibility if they want a free and open internet to exist. >> i will close with this question. let's assume you are a customer or user or facebook and you are not part of this conversation. how could you if you are a customer or user who believes they should be part of this effort most effectively influence them through the internet? >> some of which are -- you can form facebook groups. part is for customers and users to think of themselves as citizens and you need to push the companies and the services to do the right thing. you need to be active and also investors should be thinking about, okay, when i'm investing in stock of these different

companies, this should be one of the criteria that i'm using in addition to the environmental and labor behavior and when you are thinking of buying products and so on. there a bunch of different ways, but part of it is absolutely for consumers to be talking about this and to be putting pressure and saying this company is good and i can trust these people and these people i'm not sure. they are in denial about whether or not there any issues about my privacy. >> my guess is before we adjourn, there will be something under way. i thank you for your testimony and your patience. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to kind of follow-up on that. you are talking and i think the global network initiative is a great start. this is for both you and ms. wong and i can't tell you

how much admiration i have for your work and your courage. i think gni is a great start, but microsoft is one of the members and yahoo is one of the members and i don't see them making the same kind of decision that google has made. i think that bill gates recently -- i called chinese censorship very limited. i think those were his words. what do you think we can do and others can do to help other companies follow google's lead in china and that's both of you.

>> we actually -- i want to be clear that our decision is not an easy one. i don't think any company will confront how to do business as an easy one. we think we now made the right decision. we stand by our decision for sure. phi are puzzled by microsoft's statements because they are not consistent with the conversations we had over the last three years and in our view the censorship is a human rights issue and not to be minimized. having said that, we have been clear all through the process that we are not striving for one size fits all solutions. this is the right decision for google. we would not propose that to impose our decision on any other company. we do think it's important that they be part of a conversation where we are actively discussing how things are going in the country and that's an important part of gni.

>> just to follow-up on that with microsoft and other companies made remarks that were quite disappointing and we had heated discussions about that. it is absolutely true as nicole said, it's not one size fits all and each has a kind of business going on in china. yahoo sold their chinese business to a chinese company a few years ago and don't have operational control over that anymore. microsoft's situation is also somewhat different so the idea is not to impose a one size fits all set of standards on everybody in a rigid way, but rather to help the companies be mindful about what decisions they are making and what the implications are and to be transparent and accountable about the decisions.

part of the problem is they are in china and you have to comply, but how? it's an issue to what ex-at the present time do they feel comfortable that they are complying in a way that is transparent and responsible and they can do that within the context of that particular market. it may be possible for them to do it with the relationship they have with the government and the specific nature of their product. it is the case that google over the past year in china has come under tremendous pressure from the government and the chinese media. they have been slammed for exposing chinese youth to smutty

content when you type smutty terms into the search engine, smutty results appear. that a lot of these crack downs and so on are done with the guides are law enforcement and damage we use in the west in a different context. there different decisions that have to be made and often times it's specific to the company. the point is to be flexible and accountability at the same time. next year is going to be the first year where we do our first set of evaluations and we benchmark how the companies have done so far. that will also help move the process forward and it is definitely important to get more companies recognizing and stepping up and taking responsibility. that this is not about engage or

disengage, but there a lot of different ways in which you can engablg. it's about how you engage rather than in or out. >> china is a big market, that's my guess. you brought up the you talk about companies talking about how corruptible they are. if you're looking about the world's biggest market and taking yourself out of it on a matter of principle, you're making a big decision about how corruptible or uncorruptible or incorruptible you are, mr. mamarian, thank you for your integrity, your incorruptibility. in your testimony you talked about what is keeping us from having a greater expansion of

freedom of speech online, rightfully so, but i have a different question. i might even go over my time, too, mr. chairman. can you tell us what technological tools iranians are using right now to get past government censors and surveillance and -- i want to know what's already working so maybe we can do more to support that. >> there are -- there are companies that provide anti-censorship software, so people can go beyond the proxies and have access to the internet. private companies and initiatives also can provide resources, if you want to do more and provide more access for them, you know, initiatives

can provide resources to support the development of technology designed to combat internet censorship. i know many people are working on this kind of software now in san francisco and the other states, so these kinds of initiatives could be supported by the states, by the state department or other companies. and i just wanted to add something about the fact that some companies, like yahoo and facebook have not joined the initiative and yahoo and facebook have made a deal with the iranian government and eventually they will give them the information of the users. the movement is so strong in a way that some people have removed their profiles from facebook because of the threat they feel. 10 i think the fact that facebook and yahoo are not

eager to join such initiatives is kind of -- it's not really acceptable and people it is a matter of life and death of some people around the world. the world is not just the u.s. millions of other people in iran around china and egypt, they are responsible for what they provide. >> it occurs to me, there was a "mad magazine" series of an ongoing serial cartoon called "spy crst spy" this whole thing seems to have that -- an element to it where there's technology -- anti-cent sorship technology being -- event anti-censorship technology being worked on by some people. ms. wong, the chairman brought this up, in mr. memarian's

written testimony he talked about companies like yours and microsoft block certain down loads to people in iran for fear of sanctions and he explains this really just hurts the people of iran because -- >> the house is coming back in now for votes on bills debated earler. xçñçxç restrant and is he collusion in schools and for what purpose does of the er pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspenuspend the rul provely postponed -- previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order.

house resolution 1072 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 3820 by the yeas and nays. and house resolution 1097 de novo. remaining postponed questions will be taken later in the week. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1072 as amended on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1072, resolution recognizing louisiana state university for 150 years of service and excellence in higher education. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 381 -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 383, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative,

the rules are suspended. without objection, the motion is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from oregon, mr. wu to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3820 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize federal natural hazards reduction programs and for other purposes. 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 335, the nays are 50. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without

objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1097 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1097, resolution supporting the goals and ideals of national engineers week and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado rise? those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, 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 382, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

will members please clear the well. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> this thursday i bring to the house a resolution, which will finally give this house a chance to debate the war in afghanistan. we now have about 1,000 u.s. troops who have perished in the conflict. we have many innocent civilians who have lost their lives. we have a corrupt central government in afghanistan, that is basically stealing u.s. tax dollars. the "washington post" gave a story last week of how up to

$200 million is passing through airports from kabul to dubai and it's suspected the money is usais, drug traffic or both. the privileged resolution will be dropped on thursday. on tuesday, there will be a rule. on wednesday, we'll have three hours of debate. let's get ready to debate afghanistan and let's get ready for congress to get in the game and take it in a new direction. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? pauls pals i rise to recognize the dina high school principal who was named the 2010 high school principal of the year by the minnesota association of secondary school principals. they chose bruce for his style

and his effort to create a more personable school environment. under the leadership of the principal, the high school has gained praise and recognition in minnesota and throughout the nation. it was ranked one of the top two high schools in the nation and ranked 91st in the poll by "newsweek." it has introduced several education programs and a new student leadership program during his tenure. prto congratulate dr. lockleer on his well-deserved achievement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boccieri: i rise in recognition of ar businessman, ronny napier. he helped those in haiti as a

result of the earthquake and has shown selfless inspiration. he helped found the granted wish foundation, a national nonprofit whose mission is to provide fulfillment to disadvantaged individuals and families. when the earthquake shocked haiti, he made his corporate jet available to the supplies, doctors and other relief workers. humbled by what he saw, he volunteered himself and realized he had to do more. he donated $70,000. he donated super bowl tickets and the foundation collected money. using these donations and medical treatments that went to haiti so the physicians could rehabilitate permanently disabled treatment. charity can make the difference. he lives by the lesson that to whom much is given, much is

expected. whether in our local community or haiti, we need leaders like him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> my office introduced legislation to have all the detainees at guantanamo bay, cuba, tried in the military commission at guantanamo bay, cuba. when i was at guantanamo bay, cuba, i visited the men and women who are serving in uniform for guarding the prisoners at that facility in a facility that has cost taxpayers' dollars in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. we have a state of the art courtroom there to accommodate. i urge my members to support this bill, which is commonsense resolution to a controversial issue this year. try the detainees in cuba in a

military court martial. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. jackson lee of texas for today and wednesday, march 3, mr. rodriguez of texas for today, mr. jackson of illinois for today, mr. again green of texas for today and mr. reyes of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous

material, mr. harper for march 3, mr. paulsen for march 3, mr. poe for march 9, mr. jones for march 9, ms. ros-lehtinen for march 3 and 4. mr. moran for march 9 and mr. burton for today, march 3 and march 4. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? wool wools i ask unanimous consent that todd -- ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be addressed to house for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material, ms. woolsey, mr. defazio and ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: 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, mr. poe of texas.

mr. poe: this is a unique day in the state of texas. today is texas independence day. and on this day, 174 years ago, texas declared its incheds from mexico and its dictator santa anna. in 1836 in washington, 54 text ans gathered to do something bold and courageous. they signed the declaration of independence from mexico and declared that the people of texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic. as these determined delegates met to delarpe independence, santa ana and his 6,000 enemy troops were marching on a mission that we call the alamo.

texas defenders stood determined. they were led by 27-year-old lawyer by the name of william travis. the almow and texans were all that stood. and behind the cool dark walls, commeander travis sent the following letter to texas requesting aid. this is what it said. to all the people of texas and americans throughout the world, i'm be sieged by 1,000 or more of the enemy under santa anna. i have sustained cannon fire for 24 hours about i have not lost a man. the enemy has demanded surrender. otherwise, the for the will be put to the sword. the flag still waves proudly

over the wall. i shall never surrender or retreat and i call upon in the name of liberty and patriotism to come to our aid with all dispatch. if this call is neglected i'm going to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country. victory or death, we and travis, commander travis and his men sacrificed their lives. those lives would not be lost. their determination did pay off. and because of heroes like travis, crockett, and because they held out so long, santa ana forces took such great losses, they became battered. as travis said, victory will cost them more dearly than defeat. the almow defenders were from

every say in the united states and 13 foreign countries. they were black, brown and white. they were 16 through 67 and they were all volunteers. they were maff risks, revolutionaries, farmers, shop keepers and freedom fighters and came together to fight for something they believed in, freedom and independence. general sam houston had the time he needed to devise a strategy to rally other texas volunteers to defeat santa ana in a battle on december 21, 1836. the war was over and the lone star flag was visible. texas claimed land that now includes mexico, oklahoma, colorado, kansas, wyoming, even up to the canadian border. 1845, texas was admitted to the union by one vote. by treaty with the united states, texas may divide into

five states and the texas is to fly even with the u.s. flag and not below. texas was a glorious nation and won freedom and independence because fierce volunteers fought for the death. one of my grandsons is named barrett houston. and colonel travis final letter, he signed off with three words, god and texas. god and texas. god and texas. >> this is the 174 birthday of the republic of texas and commend you for the fine work that you do, not just for your constituency in the houston area, but for the entire state and america, god bless you, congressman poe. mr. poe: reclaiming my time, and that's just the way it is,

mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. woolsey of california. the the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, there is no greater security threat in the world than the continued development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. a single nuclear strike has the pour power to destroy the planet and obliterate the human race. the headline in "new york times" read, white house is rethinking nuclear policy, and boy did it need some rethinking. after years of a grossly irresponsible strategy, we should all be grateful that the obama administration seems poised on this issue to put us on a course for global security. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman may resume. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, it appears that the president is prepared to dramatically reduce the size of the u.s. nuclear stockpile. all accounts are that there will be no development of new nuclear weapons on his watch. and that includes the unnecessarily dangerous expensive and wasteful bunker buster, the pet nuke of the previous administration. and while his predecessor summed -- thumbed his nose at comprehensive test band treaty and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, president obama is sincere about honoring our multi-- multilateral obligations. not all the news is that encouraging, however. the emerging white house strategy looks like it will include an increased reliance on missile defense systems, which have proven themselves to be a failure and a waste of taxpayer

money for going onto 30 years now. and most ominously there appears to be some reluctance in the white house to adopt a no first use policy. in other words, we would not specifically rule out the nuclear strike. this should terrify all of us, mr. speaker. because it takes only a single man suffering, theik of which the whole world has never seen. what possible national security objective could be served by using weapons that could wipe out civility? by using weapons that could -- by using weapons that could wipe out civilization? i encourage the white house to be bold in its pursuit of a world free of nuclear weapons. specifically i want to see the administration adopt the principles of the no nukes

resolution that i've introduced in this congress, no nukes, that stands for nonproliferation options for nuclear understanding to keep everyone safe. the resolution specifically declares that the united states would not use nuclear weapons first, regarding them as a deterrent against attack until their eventual complete elimination. the resolution also calls for more agressive multilateral negotiations toward disarmament. greater cooperation with russia toward dismantling cold war nuclear warheads, a reaffirmation of the moratorium on nuclear testing and a ban on weapons in outer space. nuclear nonproliferation is one of the pillars of the smart security approach that i've been advocating from this chamber for years, mr. speaker. smart security means using more brains and less braun to keep america safe. it treats war only as a last

resort. it demands that we stop equating security and aggression or belligerence. it advances our security goals through humanitarian rather than military means, more development aid, more diplomacy, more conflict resolution and a more vigorous commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. there can be no winners in the nuclear armed race. we cannot afford to get this one wrong. i hope our president treats this issue with the urgency and sensitivity that it deserves. nothing less than the life of every man and woman and child on earth is at stake. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, is now recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i want to thank 370 members of the house of representatives for joining me in an effort to rename the department of navy to

be navy and marine corps. i would also like to share with the house that last thursday was a very exciting day for this effort. the reason being that mike bloom, a marine league executive director, national director, was the m.c. at as in conference that was attended and also one of the speakers of the united states marine general tony zini, son to pat roberts from the senate who has introduced an identical bill to the bill h.r. 24 that 370 members have co-sponsored. also in attendance to speak was general al gray, former comdant of the united states marine corps. and a very impressive young man from texas, sergeant eddie wright, a marine veteran and bronze star recipient who lost both hands in combat and iraq in 2004. despite his injuries he became a marine corps hand to hand combat instructor, later retired and now is a defense contractor. sergeant wright explained the

importance of the teamwork between navy and marine corps because he said at the news conference, if he had not had the navy corps he would not be living today to appear at the news conference, calling for this relationship to be publicly respected navy and marine corps. also was a father, dick lynn, whose son was killed in iraq in 2005. tracy, a marineparents.com founder and executive director, her website has 130,000-plus members and provides support for marines, parents and she also spoke on behalf of this legislation. mr. speaker, the purpose of this news conference was to announce the national spokesman. the national spokesman was also in attendance and he spoke as well, lee ermy, known as the gunny, a golden globe nominated actor and marine veteran. he is host of the history channel's "lock and load." he is a star of major films

including "full metal jackson," "dead man walking" and "toy story." lee army has become the national spokesman and tends to help us try to convince the senate to accept three words, and marine corps. mr. speaker, i would also like and submit for the record letters from ike skelton, chairman of the armed services committee and alsonking member budke i ask permission that i might do that at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: thank you, mr. speaker. in the letters from the chairman and ranking member they state that we will bring this bill to the floor sometime in april as a suspension bill and pass it on the floor and sendto the senate. then it will be up to the senate to do what they will and hopefully they will understand what senator roberts said, all we're asking is three words, and marine corps. mr. speaker, before i close i would like to show why dick lynn who lost his son in iraq in 2005, he received condolence

letters and he brought this up and i happen to have these two posters -- three posters of fallen heroes from camp lejeune marines who had died and mr. lynn said that he was so disappointed that when he received a condolence letters, he was so proud of his son who was a marine, yet i show what you he received. mr. speaker, you can see on this letter, it's a blowup, the second of navy, washington, d.c., navy flag, nothing, absolutely nothing about marine corps. and yet the young man that died and many others who have died who were marines received the same kind of letter and nothing about the marine corps except in the body of the letter. mr. speaker, if this should become law and i hope that the senate will see the need for this, to recognize the marine corps and say thank you, marine corps, you are one part of the fighting team, navy and marine corps, this is what it would have said, the secretary of the navy and marine corps, washington, d.c., with the navy flag and the marine flag.

that's what it should be and i want to say before i close, mr. speaker, that the navy and marine corps are one fighting team. they should be represented in name as one fighting team. navy and marine corps. mr. speaker, i'm going to close but as i always do close, with my heart aching for all who have given their life for this country in afghanistan and iraq, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform and, god, please bless their families, god, please in your loving arms hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and, mr. speaker, i ask god to please bless this house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god and i ask god to please bless the president, give him wisdom and strength to do what is right for this country and three times i will ask god, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, is recognized for five

minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. today i'm saddened as i rise in support and on behalf of the american people who do not believe that the fate of the nation should be subject to the whims of just one single individual senator. the senate filibuster was first used in 1837 and for more than a century it's been used very sparingly and as a last resort. even as recently as the 1960's when the filibuster was used to obstruct historic civil rights legislation, it was used to block legislation less than in 10% of major bills. but a rule change in the 1970's opened up the flood gates for abuse. suddenly by simply threatening to filibuster a single senator

could obstruct any bill that lacked 60 votes. today the filibuster is the last stand of special interests and a platform for grandstanding by obstructionist senators. a prerogative in 2009, the party of no, the senate republicans, paralyzed the country, filibustering political process, 80% of major legislation filibustered. mr. speaker, there is no doubt that the founders of our nation intended for the senate to be a moderating influence on the process of legislating so they gave senators a six-year term of office and at the same time gave house members a two-year term of office so that they could be closest to the will of the

people. and the senate was to be the deliberative body. george washington is said to have argued that the senate would cool legislation as a saucer cools hot tea. and in that same spirit james madison explained that the senate would be a necessary fence against the fickleness and passion of american politics. but, mr. speaker, the senate no longer cools the tea of legislation, it freezes it cold, solid. it is no longer a fence against fickle passions, it is an in-- impenetrateble wall of obstructing progress. the prerogative of a single senator to single handedly block any bill as -- is an affront to democracy. it is clear that the minority party utterly incapable of governing effectively while in

power has decided to obstruct those of us who are here to solve problems. the filibuster is their weapon of choice. this week we are witnessing what must surely have been one of the most shameless exploitations of the filibuster in american history and, mr. speaker, i rise this evening after witnessing this shameless exploitation with sadness in my heart, sadness at the absurd posturing of my friend, the retiring senator from kentucky, who has single-handedly blocked passage of highway jobs investment, unemployment insurance and health coverage for americans who lost their jobs. when this senator and when the previous administration were running this country they threw

wild pitch after wild pitch, an unnecessary $3 trillion war, runaway spending that turned a healthy surplus into a massive deficit, massive tax cuts for the rich that were not paid for, utter mismanagement of the economy, financial crisis and devastation to main street america. one wild pitch after another. so the american people went to the bull pen. they put a pitcher with better stuff on the mound. he was a lefty, but he's throwing strikes straight down the middle with speed and accuracy. but now the senator is looking to get back into the game and he has thrown a bean ball straight down the throats of the american people. this week in the midst of a deep recession thousands of jobs have been fur lowed, millions --

furloughed, millions of americans have feared their unemployment benefits and construction progress. may i have 30 more seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot entertain -- mr. johnson: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: ret for more time. the gentleman from kansas, mr. moran, is recognized. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to take his time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, is recognized. mr. burton: one of the things i admire the most is my good friend from texas, mr. poe, he's a real patriotic guy and tonight he made a great speech on the independence of texas and one of the things i'd like to talk about real briefly is how indiana had a hand in texas becoming a free state, a free country. . back when texas was debating,

we had a real contested election in scott county, indiana and the guy that was running for state representative went door to door and knocked on this one door and a man was in bed and was very ill and about to die. and when he asked for this man's vote and he said how do you feel about texas being admitted to the union? and the fellow said, i'm for texas being admitted. and the guy said i'm going to vote for you. on election day, the man was on his death bed and he was literally carried to the polls and voted for the gentleman who said he was going to vote for admission of texas to the union and he was elected by one vote. he went to the state legislature and there was a great debate on who was going to be the state senator from indiana. and the state legislature decided who was going to be the senator. and the debate waged on for a long time and it was decided

that the man who was running for senator who wanted to let texas be admitted to the union was elected by one vote. he went to the united states senate and dated the issue of texas being admitted to the union. and texas was admitted to the union by one vote. when people tell you one vote doesn't matter, i hope you'll remember that texas was admitted to the union by one vote, as mr. poe just talked about a few minutes ago and the man from indiana, united states senator who was for texas, was elected to the u.s. senate to the senate by one vote and the man who cast him was casting one vote. and so although i wouldn't want to take credit for texas being part of the union because of indiana, i want to say that indiana did have a role in

electing texas to the united states of america. and so i'm very happy that tonight we can celebrate the admission of texas into the union and i must say to my colleague, don't ever forget that the united states of america got the great state of texas because indiana put a senator there who voted for texas by one vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. defazio of oregon. ms. kaptur of on ohio. under the speaker's announced policy january -- for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for

two minutes. mr. cassidy: as a proud graduate of louisiana state university medical school i'm honored to stand before the house to thank my colleagues to commemorating l.s.u.'s 150th anniversary. it is the flagship university with over 650 endo youed chairs and professorships held by faculty and disciplines that support the culture disciplines and government of louisiana. with 300 student organizations on campus, it plays a major role. they have conducted research which has resulted in greater yields in incomes for farmers across the world. it operates the hospital safety net, caring for the uninsured and underinsured. after hurricane katrina, l.s.u. operated the largest field hospital and enrolled student evacuees that couldn't return to our state.

l.s.u. is known for its athletic achievements. i would like the record to he reflect the proper spelling of our motto which not only reflects our motto but french culture. when i say gaux tigers. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank you, and i thank the minority leader for giving me the opportunity to spend some time with my colleagues tonight on the house floor talking about yes, one of the most important issues, not just of the day but of the year. in fact, the past year and a half and that is the issue of health care reform in this country. colleagues, i know that we all

watched very closely, as did men and women across the country last thursday when there was a health care summit at the blair house. leadership from both the majority, democratic party and the minority republican party, my party, were invited to the white house, about 20 on each side of the aisle, moderated by none otter than the president himself. and i think that was a good thing. i commend the president for calling that summit. and i think that each side, leadership and members, particularly, i think my colleagues from the senate and colleagues from the house, the medical doctors, did a great job of explaining their view and position on health care

reform, alternative ideas which i think the president listened very carefully to. it's hard to know what actually came out of that particular session, seven hours of dialogue, the whole thing televised, but again, mr. speaker, i think it was good that we showed that there can be some comity and bipartisanship in this body and in the congress and indeed, it was a good opportunity. well, here we here --r almost a week later and we get an announcement just moments ago -- i was reading my blackberry and apparently the president is going to come forward tomorrow yet again with some change to the health care plan, even different from the 11-page

change to the senate bill that was posted on the internet last monday in anticipation of the health care summit on thursday. i don't know what that is going to say, mr. speaker. i don't know what the president has in mind. maybe we'll spend a little bit of time this evening talking about that. i'm pleased that my good friend, fellow physician, co-member of the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus and fellow ob-gyn specialist, dr. phil roe has joined me. and we will engage in a colloquy. but i just wanted to kind of set the stage tonight for our colleagues and say to both sides of the aisle, mr. speaker, and also to the administration, especially to the administration, to the president, again, i'm not sure what we'll see tomorrow, mr.

president. i look forward to very careful ly looking at any proposals, especially if they are adopting some republican ideas so we can do these things -- these important things for the american people in a bipartisan way. we were elected to do that. but i would very much like to have been at the blair house last thursday. in fact, mr. speaker, the president knows -- some of his staff knows, i don't know if he got to read my letter, when i requested to come and speak on behalf of the doctors' caucus from the house on the republican side. i didn't get to go, but dr. boustany, our colleague from louisiana, was there and did a great job. i'm proud of dr. boustany. had i had that opportunity to give my five minutes of fame or whatever, i would have said to

the president, you know, one thing that you have done that i think is probably one of he most impon regard to health care reform, and that is money that was allocated, $19 billion, in fact, to try to get electronic medical records in the hands of every practicing physician in this country, all 750,000 of them in every hospital in this country so that we could clearly reduce medical errors. we could ultimately save lives. and in the long run, long run, save money. so this is an idea that i think that at least from this republican viewpoint, mr. speaker, is bipartisan. and i commend the president, president bush had the same idea, and again, it was a plan

to fully get medical records from 2014, 2015. there are a number of things that dr. roe and i would like to talk about tonight that we don't need to spend $1 trillion. that expenditure on electronic medical records is something like $20 billion. and that's a conservative estimate, $1 trillion for this 2,700 page reform. we don't need that, mr. speaker. and i'm not sure what the president is going to say tomorrow, but i hope finally that he will listen to the american people and realize there are some targeted things that were mentioned by at the democrats and republicans. but i think the president wants to adopt republican ideas and

we're talking about things, especially like medical liability reform. the c.b.o. gave a very consecutive estimate of saving 54 billion over 10 years. but if it's the kind of medical liability reform, comprehensive, absolutely fair and balanced so patients who are injured by practitioners of medicine and by facilities that are practicing below the standard of care, that they absolutely have a redress of their griefances and a decent recovery. but the president, mr. speaker, in the bills that we are currently looking at, the house and senate bills, there is like $25 million worth of grants to states to look at, to study. we keep creating these

commissions, but not even allowing states who have already capped non-economic damages, so-called pain and suffering, those frivolous lawsuits, those states wouldn't be eligible for this $23 million of grants. so i hope that his comments tomorrow include adoption and a new bill or modification and hopefully a shrinkage of the existing bill that it is true medical liability reform, because that's the only way we save lives and save money and bend that cost curve down in the right direction. with those opening remarks, mr. speaker, i want to yield my time to my colleague, dr. phil roe. mr. roe: what we should do is

go back a year. obviously, last year when we first began this session, we knew that health care reform was going to be on the front burner. and the arguments that i heard of the need of it being on the front burner was the same i heard 20 years ago, which were rising costs of care, decreased access to care. and we have viewed those things over a period of time and understand that we have the best quality health care in the world in the united states, but it is too expensive. so the cost is a huge issue and that's one of the things i think that is not being addressed adequately or has not been. one of the great disappointments i had during the debate on this health care bill, in our doctors' caucus, we have 14 members, 10 physicians, dentist, psychologist and not any of us were consulted in any meaningful way in putting togeth