moran from kansas. for what purpose does gentleman rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: tonight, i was going to talk about health care. i think that subject has been covered fairly well by my predecessors but will be talking about it later this week. but what i would like to talk about is what my colleague from north carolina just talked about is the rules of engagement in the conflict in afghanistan and iraq. one of the things that really surprised me is we have three navy seals that are being court martialed for capturing an al qaeda terrorist in fallujah, iraq, and this terrorist took four american contractors, one a retired navy seal, he tore -- tort turted them and burpped

their bods and hung them in the streets. most of them saw that. but this man is an al qaeda triret, one of the leaders over there and we have been after him for some time. we sent the three navy seals to get him. these navy seals and many of the super trained military personnel we have do an outstanding job in risk their lives. in fact, in afghanistan, we lost 19 navy seals doing their job not too long ago when they went after an al qaeda terrorist. . they captured this terrorist and they brought him back so that he could be questioned and dealt with. they turned him over to the iraqi military for a couple days and then he was turned back over to them and then he said that he had been hit in the stomach by one of the navy seals and he had a split lip. now, bear in mind that this guy

had murdered and tortured four american contractors and held their -- hung their bodies from a bridge and he was complaining because he was hit in the stomach and had a bloody lip. well, the navy seals said that they didn't do that and there's several witnesses that said they didn't do that but one person off in the distance said he saw some kind of an altercation. and because of that they're being court marshaled. now, get this, madam speaker, they're being court marshaled for risking their lives and capturing a terrorist who killed and tortured four american contractors, we believe was involved in beheading some other americans. i can't believe it. i don't understand what the administration and what our defense department's doing. we should be going after these people and we can't go after them with kid gloves. we can't keep -- we can't coddle them. these people are terrorists. and my colleague from north carolina talked about the rules of engagement.

now in afghanistan we have military personnel over there that are said when and how they can shoot at the enbhoy may be firing at them. and i've been told that many of the taliban and al qaeda terrorists over there, if they see they're going to be hit or attacked they'll drop their guns after firing it at the american personnel and our nato allies. it's just crazy. you can't run a war like that. and so i'd like to say to the defents department and to the president of the united states -- defense department and the president of the united states if he were listening, i know i can't talk to him directly becauseky only talk to the house and my colleagues, -- because i can only talk to the house and my colleagues. we can't run a war like this. we have to go after the terrorists no holds barred. if we catch them and they're terrorists we should bring them to justice or kill them. the just that simple. and we shouldn't be holding our military personnel like these three navy seals up to a standard that's impossible for

them to be able to attain. they have to do their job, they risk their lives, many of them get kill or come back maimed. i've seen what the horrible things that happen in war and ow they lose their arms and legs but they do that to help us maintain our freedom and our democracy. our republic. and so i hope that somebody in the defense department may be listening and paying attention, madam speaker, and in the administration. we need to take the gloves off of our men and women in combat and let them know we're behind them 100% and these navy seals should not be court marshaled as is the case right now. we have sent 140,000 petitions to the defense department asking for this case to be dropped. i hope it will be dropped. but we're not going to let this thing go away. we're going to to fight for these navy seals -- fight -- we're going to fight for these navy seals. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. defazio of oregon. ms. kaptur of ohio. ms. jackson lee of texas. ms. foxx of north carolina. mr. lincoln diaz-balart of florida. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, madam speaker. inside the gulag of prisons in the caribbean totalitarian state of the castro brothers a few days ago six heroes managed to get a statement out of one of the prisons. and i'd like to read it at this time. we continue to suffer cruel treatment, inhuman, degrading treatment and even torture in the communist regime's prisons. we ask all who support cuba's freedom to between march 12 and march 31 unite in short periods of fasting and study of the

bible, demanding the liberation of all political prisoners and liberty and democracy in cuba, to engage in short fasts and prayer sessions in your homes, churches or other public gathering places and speak out in articles and conferences to reflect upon and help implement through peaceful, just and patriotic means the long-sought objectives of the cuban people. this statement is from julio, recardow -- ricardo and others who are in a prison in cuba. this was sent march 3. the parliamentary forum of the community of democracies was formed this last friday, madam speaker. under the leadership of lithuania that is chairing the

community of democracies. and especially a magnificent diplomat, ambassador -- an ambassador. lithuania led to form a parliamentary assembly, a parliamentary form, and the first meeting was held in lithuania on friday. and the first resolution by motion of the new president of the parliamentary forum of the community of democracies, the first resolution of that parliamentary forum of the committee of democracies i'd like to read. it's titled, calling for support of cuba's pro-democracy movement. and the convening meeting of the parliamentary forum of the community of democracies, lithuania, march 12, 2010. whereas the pro-democracy movement in cuba has grown at a

rapid pace over the last three years and specifically expressions of the movement are evident today in the explosion of bloggers and independent journalists, musicians, artists, writers and others who are using their talents to denounce the atrocities of the dictatorship all while putting forth new ideas to the transition of democracy. whereas there are still extraordinary obstacles to overcome such as the continued repression by the totalitarian dictatorship, extremely liberated access to the internet . whereas the dictatorship is fearful of the growth of the pro-democracy movement, whereas the message of the movement is coherent and clear in demanding freedom for all cuban political prisoners, beginning with those who are gravely ill inside the prisons. freedom of expression and fair, multiparty elections with international supervision, whereas is common position of the cuban pro-democracy movement

requires recognition, dissemination and solidarity on the part of the international community. whereas now more than ever the cuban pro-democracy movement requires that the democratic community take concrete steps to demonstrate its solidarity. now therefore it is resolved by the parliamentary forum of the community of democracies that it condemns the brutality of the cuban regime against cuban political prisoners, expresses support for the pro-democracy movement, honors cuban pro-democracy fighters such as the marcher and expresses its admiration for the efforts of other hee owes, calls for the immediate -- heroes, calls for the immediate release of cuban political prisoners and calls on the democratic community to take concrete steps in demonstrating their sol cater with the cuban pro-democracy -- solidarity with the cuban pro-democracy movement. by providing assistance to the movement, urging foreign diplomatic posts in savannah to

strengthen contacts with activists on the island, encouraging foreign dickny tears to visit cuba for the purpose of meeting with pro-democracy activists and looking for opportunities to support the position of the cuban pro-democracy movement in the international community. this action by the parliamentary forum of the community of democracies deserves commendation. those heroes in the gulag who are suffering today are the leaders of cuba tomorrow. they deserve our support. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: u.n. of january 6, 2009, -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, mr. carter is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker.

mr. carter: for the past about, i don't know, 12 to 18 months i've been coming on the floor of the house to talk about the rule of law. the rule of law is the underpinning upon which our society is built. we talked about this over and over. we talked about it in terms of ethical issues that pertain to people in this house, we talk about it in terms of criminal actions, we talked about it in terms of what's going on with our military. you heard some speakers here tonight raise some issues concerning how we fight wars, rules of engagement, all of

these are rules we set for ourselves in some form or fashion. well, i've also been on this floor talking about the fact that political correctness in my humble opinion is becoming so rampant in our society that we forget the why of what we're doing. because we're so afraid of offending someone. i am from central texas. my district includes the largest military facility as far as soldiers are concerned on the face of the globe. fort hood, texas. i think everybody will always -- those of us in central texas, we know fort hood and we have a lot of great thoughts about the great soldiers out there, great thoughts about the great commanders that serve at fort

hood, about the awesome accomplishments of the solders who have passed through for the -- soldiers who have passed through fort hood, fighting our nation's battles on every shore you can imagine and in this country dating back to the civil war, fort wood doesn't -- fort hood doesn't date back to the civil war but it's named after a civil war soldier. we're proud of fort hood. but unfortunately because of something that happened this year fort hood will also be identified always in the minds of the american citizens as a place where a terrorist stabbed people in the back by walking down the line of soldiers and shooting soldiers just standing in line either checking in from being -- going to war or checking out, getting ready to go to war. they were not armed, they were not doing anything more than what's required of them by the army, to process into or out of a facility.

and yet a man who's now, we call him the accused, but over 200 people witnessed mr. hasan go on a shooting rampage killing soldiers who were doing nothing more than standing in line. or processing another soldier. these were not people that were at war or were armed to defend themselves. had they been armed to defend themselves, mr. hasan wouldn't have gotten off more than one shot before he would have died because these were professional shoulders -- soldiers who knew exactly how to take care of business. but they were not armed. and in fact they were in a safe place. that's the sad thing. they were in a safe place. a place where they should have been safe. where they thought they were safe. and where maybe never again they will think that they are safe. because of what happened that

day. now, this was not some terrorist that sneaked into our country. this was a man that had joined the united states army and through the goodness of the american citizen and the american taxpayer received a medical degree with a psychiatric specialty and all of this was paid for by the united states army. . his post-residencey training and his residency to psychiatry all paid for by the oons government. he -- by the united states government. he was an american citizen. and yet homo jid hadism, and some of that is in the news this week, caused this man to go out

and murder, 13 people and one unborn child and ruined or wounded 13 additional people. one sold year is watching and he is sitting in a hospital in south austin. he was shot multiple times and had a plate put in his head and was rejected and is going to have another one put in his head. when i talked to his father, he said, two deployments, we prayed and worried about our son and he came out without a scratch. he's at home, where he should be safe and this animal killed him, almost killed him. and he is surviving through his heart being big and tough and having a family and army that

supports him. but this young man had been so successful in his last deployment, they were send sending him to officers' candidate school. so he wasn't stationed at fort hood, but transition ong through there when he was shot. he still hopes to be an officer in the united states army and we are hopeful he will be, but he is a seriously wounded soldier, but he is going to make it and hopefully get back in the army that he loves. this is the domestic terrorist who decided to take it upon himself to take on the fight at fort hood, not a real fight, a one-sided fight, the only guy with a guy -- he had two of them. and he got to hoot who he wanted to shoot and he shot men and

women in uniform. i don't know about you, but i think this was just another theater of war, wars we have been fighting in iraq and wars we have been fighting in afghanistan against these terrorists who indiscriminately think they have the right to kill in whatever cause they call it. some would say it is religious fanatics, others would say they are jihaddists and have fanatical following, but whatever it is, we have been at war now for 10, 12 years. and as we were told when it started, it's going to be a long fight, maybe the longest in the history of the republic and it's approaching that now. so, i think these young men and women were killed on the battlefield of fort hood and

that's why i introduced a piece of legislation to have them to get the kind of benefits who get killed or wounded in combat get. and that is that if there are medals to be awarded, they should get a medal. if they are wounded, a purple heart. i heard a story of a sergeant who was there with several of his troops, a sergeant was shot four times and as the man lowered the pistol to fire the fifth time, one of his enlisted men, thinking he couldn't take any more, jumped in between the shooter and the sergeant to make his sergeant and took the three other rounds that were fired. now, had that taken place on the battlefield, i'm sure that would be something that would be heroism in the line of fire. and i think that young man should be awarded something like

the bronze star, silver star, something like that. i don't know. i'm not saying what medal, but he ought to get a medal for it. and they ought to get -- if there are families that were from this combat experience, either lost a loved one or injured from this battle at fort hood, i think they ought to get extended combat benefits that we give our soldiers that we give them when they are in harm's way. if the american people hear that, they would say, sure they ought to get that, because the testimony will be when this trial comes out, because i talked to a lot of the soldiers that were there, that he was shooting soldiers. if he hit any civilians, it's just because he missed. but he was walking down the line shooting soldiers. he was declaring war on the american sold year. i wanted to talk -- soldier.

i wanted to talk about fort hood. we got a report that doesn't even mention radical jihaddist or the name of the shooter and i'm afraid it was done because they were afraid to step on somebody's toes. i was told they wanted to protect the prosecution of this man and being a judge who tried cases in his courtroom for 20 years, including five or six capital murder cases, i can assure you if you can't approve a case with two eye witnesses, you have a problem with your lawyers. i won't say what i think, because i think it was wrong to not report accurately who the person was. i'm joined by a former federal prosecutor, mike mccaul, my

friend and colleague from texas. and i'm glad he has come to join us and i yield to mr. mccaul, whatever time he wishes to consume. mr. mccaul: i thank you for hosting this leadership hour and your great leadership on this issue. you and i see this same way. you were a judge, i was a federal prosecutor, we respect the rule of law, but we respect the truth. and we call it like it is. we call it like we see it. that's what texans do. and this matter has been swept under the rug. we're not calling it what it is. you and i were the first two members of congress to stand up and say, you know what, there was an act of terrorism that occurred the other day at fort hood. that was the act of a terrorist.

not some criminal defendant. this was an act of terrorism. you stood up, representing fort hood, in your usual way, and said that's what it was and i stood up, and it took months before the secretary of homeland security came before our committee and acknowledged what we said all along, that this was an act of terrorism. i congratulate you for your bill, which acknowledges it for what it was. and that was, an act of war on u.s. soil, combat, recognizing the victims and their families, giving them the combat pay that they deserve. you and i, we're at the ceremony, the memorial service, one of the most dramatic services that i have ever attended. i know the gentleman feels the

same way. i want to hold up a picture of that tragic day where we had 13 pairs of combat boots, 13 rifles, 13 helmets, honoring the dead and one unborn child, 43 injured, two of those injured standing next to me in this photograph. and i asked them the question, because they're the best evidence, they are the best evidence. what happened that day? they were shot by him. what did he say to you? and these two said, congressman, he screamed as he gunned down my colleagues in cold blood and wounded 43 soldiers on the base, the largest military installation in the country. and who is this man?

i know general cohen was at the ceremony and i said would you have liked to have known a major on your base was making communications with the top al qaeda operative? sure i would have. what happened that day? the joint terrorism task risk i used to work with when i was a prosecutor had that evidence. a department of defense had that evidence. but for a variety of reasons, we questioned witnesses on this and did not want to share that with the commander of fort hood. that was for a variety of reasons. but for god's sakes, let the commanding officer know he has a major -- this isn't an ordinary event, a major talking to an al qaeda operative, a man who has come to our attention recently

with the christmas bomber. but who is mr. hassan? and thank god he is a terrorist that is going to face a military tribunal. well, he was born from a jordanian immigrants. each of these as the case unfolded, if you will, raised a flag as to who is this man and we talk a lot about connecting the dots, but these were dots that were popped up that failed to be acted upon. why weren't they acted upon, a man who said his allegiance was to the koran and not to the constitution, a man who described the war on terrorism as a war against islam, according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him, a man who argued that muslims were being targeted by u.s.

-anti-terror campaigns. a former classmate, he was very vocal about the war and very upfront about being a muslim first and american second. if that's politically incorrect to say that, all yame saying in this chamber is the truth. he was also concerned that muslims in the military were being persecuted. on his business cards, this is all the evidence of this man, business cards said sold year of allah. the morning of the shooting, he wore traditional pakistani gash and was known to wear that off duty. there are religious protections for that. but all this shows us an individual who was presenting a threat to the soldiers. we know al qaeda has targeted military installations and

targeted fort dix. the question that general cohen asked me, we don't know how many more hassans are out there, who are a direct threat to our military installations. the cleric in yemen basically said that hassan trusted him and praysed him as a here -- praised him as a hero after the shooting. god is great, that's what he screamed when he shot those men in cold blood. i can't think of anything more sickening. anyone who believes in god, to believe in a god where you can say, god is great, as you're killing somebody. that is a perverted, twisted religion. that is what we are dealing with. i have asked the homeland security committee through

letters, both to -- homeland security intelligence committee, jane harman to hold hearings on this. benny thompson, the majority chairman of the homeland security committee to hold hearings on this matter, because the american people are entitled to know what happened that day. and yet, we get a report, a report that didn't say a whole lot, a report that was so politically correct, it didn't mention radical islam. i remind you, that's what this war is all about, the war we're in right now, is a war against the exreelist, -- extremist, that say they -- that says it's ok to kill in the name of god. i know the gentleman has some

comments but i thank you for one of the first ones to say this was an act of terrorism and i'm glad the secretary of homeland security has said that and i thank you for your steadfast support for your troops. you represent a base and i know howell you represent them and i personally thank you for that. mr. carter: i thank my friend, mr. mccaul, for his kind words. let's look at this exhibit that we have here. and congressman mccaul, you touched on these things. it was said by mr. hassan that he felt like he was being persecuted by people and i had an old gulf war colonel who said, you know, the army must have changed a whole lot since i left the army, because i never

did not know an enlisted man would persecute a major in the army. it makes no sense, enlisted man persecuting a major? makes no sense. the first question, how does a man, who had shown the signs of radical islamic behavior, who has acted erratically and for years before the attack, one of our members have talked to a doctor and saying he was doing this in medical school, which is long before this period of time, how did he -- and he promoted is radical islamic views at walter reed hospital and shared emails

with al-awlaki? who did he get promoted? he got moved down the line. . i tried a case one time back in the 1980's that involved a nurse and in that case she was accused of killing a baby while giving it its injections for tetanus at a doctor's office. and intentionally killing that baby. and there was an awful lot of evidence that while working in a intensive care neonatal unit in san antonio a lot of other babies died very mysteriously on her watch and unless i'm

mistaken she got life in prisonment and she's -- imprisonment and she's still there. but, what's interesting is the system she was working in, when they started seeing unusual behavior, rather than doing something about it for fear of offending someone they just recommended her for another job and this pediatrician who was operatinging had asked whether this nurse woog a -- would be a good nurse to go to work for them and she got glowing reports from people who were looking at records and saying, something's wrong when this lady's on duty. and ask you, why would people do that? well, because people have gotten to where we're so afraid of stepping on somebody's toes or offending someone because of

their class, sexual classification, whatever it may be, that we don't just speak the truth. something's bad, this doesn't make sense, we need to ask questions about this. we can't have a society like this. we have to be able, when we see something that the wrong, to say, that's wrong. that's why i've got a bill that i introduced and we'll be working on it even further, the military whistle blower protection act. we have wrist of blower protection which is very effective in the united states -- whittle blower protection which is very effective in the united states. one of the things that happens in the military is that your progress report, how you're doing in your job in the military, is very important to whether you're going to be promoted to the next rank and if you don't get promoted in the military your days in the military are numbered. so you need to be promoted. and many people fear to speak

out on something like this for fear that someone might think they're exhibiting some sort of prejudice, a prejudicial behavior, which would go on their record and maybe prevent them from being advanced in the military even though everything else should be advanced. so they fear, they fear speaking out for fear of retribution. well, in turn we -- and they've made movies about whistle blowers, people know that in our society today the guy that steps up and says something and gets fired because he said it has a protection under the law. so i've asked us to look at granting to the members of congress the right to create a whist -- whistle blower act and doing it to protect our soldiers. i think we need to be interrupted for a moment. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate.

the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: ms. secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate shall convene as a court of impeachment at 2:00 p.m., march 17, 2010, for the purpose of receiving the manager's on the part of the house in the manner of the impeachment against a judge of the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas may proceed. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker. so we've got a whistle blower act that basically says that service members can report unusual bizarre behavior by other members whether they be equal rank or other rank without fear of retribution. and especially as it relates to radical islamic threats as we saw in this case. and, you know, mr. mccaul mentioned, one of the things that we need -- somebody in the

department of defense is saying that this involved a radical islamic terrorist event. and i've had my differences with mrs. napolitano but i will give her credit, when she was asked both in the committee and in the appropriations subcommittee of homeland security she made the statement that this was a violent islamic terrorist act. that took place at fort hood. she had the courage to call it what it is. it's time for the defense department to call it what it is and recognize these were men and women put in harm's way because they were serving the united states army in the presence of an enemy combatant with a gun and that's why they should get the kind of benefits including metals that should be awarded -- medals that should be awarded for heroism if they deserved them and they earned them. so, i commend secretary

napolitano for being the person who speaks the truth. mr. mccaul: it was refreshing to see that and i agree, i don't always agree with her either. but she had the courage to call it like it is, like you and i called it for quite some time, and the sad thing is there are 13 dead and one unborn and 43 wounded because people didn't have the guts to stand up and call it what it was. you know, the day that happened, it seemed to me a systemic process of trying to -- systematic process of trying to -- i was a prosecutor too, if you can't win this caser you need to get out of the business. the sweeping under the rug and not wanting to hold hearings on this issue and not willing to brief us. we finally got a briefing on this just a couple of weeks ago for the first time. and you saw the impact this

administration was trying to have on this whole thing that, no, this wasn't, you know, we can't really call it what it was because we don't want to offend anybody. well, that's the same type of attitude that led to this monster killing 13 people to begin with. all these red flags popped up and all these dots if you will, when they popped up no one had the guts to act on it. they wanted to sweep it under the rug. and they swept his promotion, they promoted him even though all this was out there, swept it under the rug, and now even after the tragic events that happened that day, there is a -- an attempt in my view to try to sweep this all under the rug and trying to move forward and this is one example of many things that have happened this past year. i always said that, you know, they like to attack a president in the first year of office, al qaeda, they did it with bill clinton, 1993 world trade center, they did it with george w. bush with 9/11 and i

predicted that this was going to happen under this president's watch this year. and not only did this happen but we had the same radical cleric tied to the christmas bomber. fortunately there mr. hasan will face a military tribunal. the christmas bomber on the other hand will not. you know, we had several events over the last year of threats to the united states and multiple attempted terrorist attacks on the united states of america and i think it's high time we recognize it and see it for what it is to better protect the american people and our military bases that we know are being targeted right now. the idea that the joint terrorism task force and again these are friends of mine, but they had this information and they didn't -- i understand compromising investigations, but you could at least let the general of the base know that he

has an individual, a major, in his outfit talking to a top al qaeda recruiter and he may just want to put him under observation. you don't have to question him, you don't have to dig into his files, don't have to put him onto alert that we're looking at him but you may want to monitor his actions because there's some radical steps going on the and potentially he could be a threat. this man did not believe in the mission. the irpey of mr. hasan is he was the man -- the irony of mr. hasan is he was the man trained and paid for by the american taxpayer of the united states army to council -- counsel people coming back from the theater of war and he didn't believe in the mission. i can only imagine what kind of counseling he was giving to these troops coming back from the war that you and i have been to in afghanistan and what he was telling them when he himself didn't believe in the mission they were sent to do. that is the absurd irony of mr. hasan. and, again, as the general

asked, how many more mr. hasans are out there? i think we have a duty in the congress, i think the department of defense has a duty, i hope they'll uncover more of this, but we have a duty to better protect our soldiers, not only abroad but right here in the united states and that is the great awful tragic event of what happened was that it happened on american soil and it happened in their home. and that's just not supposed to -- that is not supposed to occur in this country. it needs to be taken seriously, it shouldn't be swept under the rug and i think we should continue to do this and continue to ask the majority to hold the hearings on this. and you know, as secretary napolitano admitted, it was a violent islamic terrorist attack. i think the department of defense needs to come forward with that as well. and i think we have an obligation to the american people not to sweep this under the rug, to prevent future actions from occurring.

all of our responsibilities under the constitution i take very seriously and we have a duty here in the congress to hold those hearings and get to the bottom of this case so we can stop it in the future. you know, i went down to guantanamo after the president decided to close it down. and i saw khalid sheik muhammad and it was during prayer hour and he was laying on his rug boughing to mecca and it was one of the most chilling things i've seen in my life. a man responsible for killing 3,000 people, 3,000 americans, and the idea that we're going to bring him in the united states. and, look, i was a prosecutor for the southern district of new york, one of the best u.s. attorney's offices in the country but are we going to treat these people as criminal defendants? or enemy combatants? are we going to say this is a war or a criminal prosecution? it seems to me that we're slipping back into the clinton

years where we really looked at these as just a legal criminal prosecution not an act of warfare perpetrated against the united states of america. and it seems to me particularly with the top 16 al qaeda operatives who -- many of whom were responsible for 9/11, that was an act of warfare and it should be treated as such and with that i yield back. mr. carter: this exhibit right here is a picture of the pennsylvania right after it was hit. we had -- pentagon right after it was hit. we had this display, in talking about the receiving of medals by our soldiers at fort hood and getting the kind of benefits that you get for being in combat, we awarded the people killed and injured when the plane went into the pentagon with those benefits. i am told by the members of the armed services committee that it was done without an act of congress.

i've also written a letter to secretary gates asking him for the same administrative remedy for these casualties of the war on terror on american soil. we gave it to them, the horrendous act, that picture and other pictures from that time should be cemented in our memory forever. whether you kill 3,000 or kill 14 and injure 43 they're still american people who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists in the middle of the war on terror. a war on radical islamic jihadism. it's time for us to step up to the pleat for these people and do this for them -- plate for these people and do this for them. mr. mccaul: i was proud to be a co-sponsor of your bill. i hope we see it pass in short order. and i agree with you. that was an attack on american soil by the terrorists, you

know, and according to the secretary of homeland security, so was fort hood. . how can we differentiate between the pentagon and fort hood, both symbols of might and power. it is fighting to the families and i hope the majority would see it the same way, this was an act of terror perpetrated on american soldiers and give them the just compensation they gave the same victims of 9/11. the pentagon, i can think of no reason why that legislation should be blocked by the majority. mr. carter: reclaiming my time, i have members on both sides of the aisle that have joined in co-sponsoring this bill. i think when we get through some of the business that is taking

forever around here, we get down to something like this, i gee with you, this was supposed to be an oversight congress. there is a valid attempt and nothing is more important than this. just what happened and how it happened and you say, ok, people were killed, it's got bigger ramifications than that. that's what's hard to understand. this was a man wearing the same uniform of the people he shot. and i want to share a story and i shared it before with the house. the day after all this took place, i was at fort hood. i was at the hospital where there were wounded out there who had been transported, both there and all over our district. our community from all the way down into bell county, the whole

surrounding area just united by the medical community behind this terrible act and gave the very best medical care available anywhere to these people. i was talking to a nurse and she said when she was deployed to afghanistan, she worked in a hospital in australians and she got an email from an australian nurse after the day of the shooting and she said, you know, soldiers in the australian army are starting to question and asking this question of mental health professionals in our army already today, if the americans can't trust the people in their uniform, can we trust the people in our uniform. now, remember, if you're in the military and you're a sold year -- soldier, we like to say we

depend on each other, but when they depend on each other, they put their lives in the man behind them, front of them and they, in turn, have those people's lives in their hans. the military functions by knowing that they can do their job and trusting the other one to do it. so there is something that strikes them when a fellow solder publicly executes 13 people and unborn child, wearing the same uniform as the people who were shot, so it strikes to the soul of a sold year, we are -- solder and doing our good job. these are tall en-- talented young men and women.

but it's still there, created distrust and arguably, it's as effective a strike as you can have. if you cause folks to distrust. so this has big scope. and truth to fact, what would we think if somebody we trusted behind your backs started shooting people in this place, we wonder who we could trust. mr. mccaul: i couldn't agree more. this was worse ven 9/11, because there, the enemy was a foreign radical islamic terrorist. in this case, these soldiers are absoluting their colleagues who lost their lives who were killed by a major in the u.s. army who was wearing the very same

military uniform that they are and the idea that he could betray his soldiers like this, not only be dray tray but kill them, that's what makes it so very, very hard to accept. and you know, the yemeni cleric said the soldier trusted him. and promoted him through the ranks and because of political correctness he was never called out because of his behavior. we know the flags were raised. i mean, i'm not making this stuff up. business cards say, sold year of allah. the line he used when he killed

them in cold blood, talking about the war on terrorism is a war against islam. and just makes you wonder how could we promote someone in the united states army and united states military when these types of flags are going up. who said his allegiance was to the koran and not to the constitution. the morale which is so important in a time of war is critical here. and if we can act and we have things like this in the united states army because out of fear we won't be politically correct and may hurt someone's feelings, where have we gone in this country? we can't call it out like it is and say for what it is and this man did not love his country. that he had more loyalty to rad equal islam and that's why he called -- why he killed those 13

soldiers that day. mr. carter: i would also argue that the way this thing has been treated, i would say with kid gloves, makes the next home-grown terrorist, of which we have seen what, two or three in the last few weeks, jihad jane and there is another one now, jihad jenny, these women who are american citizens who are now promoting jihaddist terrorism and the under wear bomber on christmas day. so, these people, i think, are looking at the murder iron a military base, i think

encourages them to get involved in this stuff. if they got a screw loose, which most of these people do -- >> the same radical cleric who praised mr. has hasan's actions. he was today tied to the christmas bomber. it is connected to the cleric. why didn't he know about this, a major on his base. and that's what we have to fix going forward with the department of defense. the christmas bomber, a whole another -- how many more christmas bombers are out there, too? how many people is the radical cleric influencing? jihad jane, they'll go to these web sites and not only do we have to deal with the al qaeda

operatives overseas, but this kind of act inspires them. and the fact that we could have let them inspires them. how many more radical home-grown terrorists are out there? we know the radical cleric has said, one man, one incident. they are decentralizing, take a gun and explosive device. and it's coming from the same individuals tied to mr. hasan and to the christmas bomber and we have to wake up to that, and i yield back. mr. carter: i have huge respect for general cohen and outstanding he did with the situation that happened at fort hood and he was preparing to dely to afghanistan to -- deploy

to afghanistan. with that on his plate, this on his lap, he has done an outstanding job of handling it. by the way, he is still on time deployed the third corps to iraq and he is right now today over there doing our bidding and our job of pulling down, making elections work and pulling down forces for the taking out of 50,000-plus soldiers in august. he is a great american outstanding sold year. i yield -- soldier, i yield to mr. king however time he wishes to take and not letting political correctness fall. mr. king: i thank my friend from

texas. and i especially felt more than anyone else outside of texas the pain of the 14 who were murdered by major hasan. and the question arises that we need to face and something we talked around a little bit here and i don't know if we talked about it and that is the issue of profiling. what is it that people think we should be more suspicious of them. i grew up in a law enforcement family and a couple of things never occurred to the law enforcement extended family that i grew up in and one of them was to ignore the rule of law and another one would be would be to ignore the evidence in front of your eyes. good thing about police work, you see things out of order, you notice those, turn your focus on this, wonder why it's out of order and profiling one fashion or another causes the law enforcement resources to be use

the in a far more effective fashion and time after time, crimes are solved because there have been police officers that understood the anomalies in the people. it doesn't me -- i'm opposed to law enforcement going out and targeting people because of race, religion or ethnicity. when you see people who are blowing up our plans and hijacking, it's young, muslim men. i would suggest that instead of spread eagle senching that nor weegian grandmother, we ought to turn our focus on the people who fit the profile on the people who are likely to bomb us. there are a lot of people who would fit that people but far more unfortunate if we peace our resources searching people that have no history and the profile doesn't fit anyone who would be

bombing an airline. that is common sense and good police work. we are so political correct in this country. we wallow in self-guilt. we figure out and someone pointed out you are racist and therefore we have to demonstrate and do all kinds of our expenditures to anyone being able to point to the focus of resources. and i don't suggest, madam speaker, that we ought to simply profile and put our assets into one particular profile but score them according to a weight system and turn our focus to those in proportion to the agree of the score. that makes sense. that is the thing we should have done after 9/11. but in reality, we are a nation with self-guilt. another component of this, major hasan, what happened that he got

radicalized. we use the term that somehow it's not their fault. we nurtured an environment, every individual that attacks people and kills them is responsible for their own actions. and the radicalization takes place by their will. so we are so politically correct that we will go in and listen to the radicalization taking place. we wait for something bad to happen and therefore no one can point their finger at us and accuse us of being politically incorrect. they point their finger at me every day saying i'm political incorrect. we need to utilize resources and do so in a fashion that is clearly for the purposes of enforcing the law and protecting the american people and look into the psychology of the army and i have an army tie on today

that you might notice, they need to understand that they have the ability to speak up and keep an eye out for the people that would kill us, people that believes their path to salvation is jews, christians a in that order. that's the eternal bliss for them if they can get that done and there is a place for them in the next life and it's not where they think. and i yield back and and i thank the gentleman from texas for indulging me. mr. carter: we need to stand up for what's right and if it means someone might get their feelings hurt, i don't have a problem with that. i'm not the -- for going out and shaking up communities like used to happen in the olden -- oh, olden days, older than me, anyway. in fact there used to be a

television show called "dragnet." but we're talking about using good intelligence and if we're going to kill our intelligence and not look at things because we're afraid we're going to hurt somebody's feelings, then we're going to get hit again. if we get hit again we're going to be standing around asking the same questions we're asking here tonight. why? what happened? why --wide this happen? -- why add this happen? we had the information to ask the question. somebody sh shhh -- should have asked. that's the key. mr. mccaul: we had the information in both the hasan case and the christmas bomber. i made all the points about the hasan case, all the flags that pop you hadded up, the failure to act -- popped up, the failure to act upon those red flags. in the christmas bomber case you had a state department cable coming out that warned, the father had come in warning that his son was in touch with

islamic extremists in yemen. and when i asked the undersecretary of the state -- state department, mr. kennedy, why -- in god's name, when you found that out, why didn't you revoke his visa, his response was, a lot of people come into embassies and a lot of people give us tips and i wouldn't necessarily -- we're not all credible. this wasn't some unanimous source coming in, it was his father. meanwhile in the intelligence community there's specific threat information coming in about this individual. the intelligence community's got the threat information. it's not put together. both sides could have acted on it. the intelligence community could have asked the state department, does this guy have a passport? does he have a visa? can rerevoke that? and -- can we revoke that? and same with the state department. yet that didn't happen. we need to move forward to make sure the christmas bomber

doesn't happen again and to make sure with all the evidence coming on mr. hasan, to make sure individuals like this, the evidence isn't swept under the rug out of political correctness. mr. carter: reclaiming my time. mr. king made the comment about crazy conservatives. let's look at some crazy conservatives that made the same statements we're asking. i wouldn't classify "time" magazine as one of the great conservative magazines of the 21st century. but here's an article from "time" magazine asking the same question. the fort hood report, why no mention of islam? here's another i would say not very conservative organization, the "san francisco chronicle," ask the question question -- asking the same question. i think that it doesn't -- you cross all boundaries here when you start getting down to the logical things we ought to be doing to fight people who are

trying to kill us. i mean, it doesn't take a genius to say, daddy says he's crazy and he may do something crazy and you get reports that this guy's out there talking to this guy over in yemen, these things start to fit together, maybe you are checking with the airport before he takes off from brussels or amsterdam. fortunately he had a mistire and it didn't work. but he could have killed not only all the people on that airplane but a whole lot of people on the ground in detroit and detroit mission's got enough problems right now without having somebody blowing up an airplane over their city. and god bless them. mr. mccaul: if the gentleman will yield. it was preventble. there's a lot of information coming in and we have a lot of good men and women working the counterterrorism. they have a tough job. a lot of information coming in. but we had these two major focal points that were never acted upon and never put together and the -- in the christmas bomber

case and mr. hasan, my god, how many points of error popping up on him? how many red flags are popping up? and why weren't they acted upon? i think it goes back to your original point. we didn't want to hurt someone's feelings. and you know what? we see this in the federal government. they kind of promote and move on somebody rather than having to deal with the problem. we had somebody who's making these radical statements but i'd rather not deal with the problem. let's transfer him from walter reed where he was a major problem, we know that, poor performance evaluations, to one of the largest military installations in the country. and let's promote him to major in spite of the fact all these points of evidence were out on him and i think that is the real tragedy. i know my good friend from texas has probably one of the most difficult jobs out of any member in this body and that is because you have more soldiers in your district than any other.

and you're the one -- you're the one who has to count for them, as we all do, but you many more times than any other member, has to comfort their loved ones whose son or daughter has been killed in the time of war and i know you personally have con for thed the families of the victims here -- comforted the families of the victims here in fort hood. the biggest tragedy is that it could have been prevented. i yield back. mr. carter: once again we're talking about the rules we make for ourselves and how we should apply them and i think it's honestly said here that let's don't be so politically correct that we oversee ills that may fall upon our society. that's why we make rules. that's why we have laws and order in our society, so that we can protect our citizens, whether they be civilians or in the military. it's been a great evening and i thank my friends, mr. mccaul, mr. king, for being here, to

join me in this conversation. i'm going to thank this house for allowing me to continue to talk about issues that relate to rules or to the law and with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for five minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i had the great pleasure of holding a town hall meeting in one of the towns in the fifth district in north carolina, statesville, north carolina. i didn't count the number of folks there and i haven't had a chance to ask my staff exactly how many were there, but i think probably about 175 people were there. and we let these folks rant, put in questions or their fames -- names into a box and we pulled their names out randomly and let

them speak about the health care bill. this was a health care town hall. and to a person who spoke and they're -- there are probably about a dozen who had a chance to speak for about two minutes and i answered their questions, they all are very upset about what is going on here in congress. they're upset about many, many things, but they're particularly upset about this government takeover of our health care system and they just don't understand why the folks in the majority continue to push this issue knowing that the majority of the people in this country are very much opposed to it. they very much are concerned about what they have heard and read about the way this is going to be pushed through this week. they hate it when bills are put together that aren't germane to each other or that aren't related. they heard about the education bill being put on the health care bill and they're very concerned about that. they just don't like that.

they said over and over again, they know that the government does not do things more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. they talked about, one businessman talked about how he's been struggling for the last year. he has used up all his savings, all his equity in the last year to keep his business going because the economy is so bad and he wants to know, where's that stimulus that he thought that we were getting? so it was a great town hall because they talked about what was on their mind and got a chants to -- chance to ask me questions. when i told them about the plan to do this reconciliation bill where the folks on the majority side are going to go from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting for them they understood what a threat that is to our entire way of life. they understand that that's a threat to the rule of law and they are very much concerned

about that. i told them of the president meeting with us at our retreat and saying, you know, i was wrong when i've said over and over again that you can keep your health care -- your health insurance if you like it, but he said, i made a mistake by saying that because some cats and dogs got into that senate bill that we weren't planning to get into that bill but we're going to take care of that but guess what? that's not going to get taken care -- care of that. but guess what? that's not going to get taken care of and the president made that statement again this week, out on the stump, if you like your plan, you can keep it, when he told the republicans at our retreat, that is absolutely not true. we have a major problem, mr. speaker, in this country. we have people trying to establish a takeover of our lives from birth to death. they want the government to run our lives and to make all of our decisions for us. and i have an article, mr. speaker, from "the washington

times," wednesday, january 20, 2010, that says more government won't work, which i'd like to enter into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. but the senate bill that the house is about to pass this week under very, very shaky rule that's going to let people vote on the rule and then say the bill is passed has major problems with it. it's not addressing the cost of insurance and health care, it has a tax on hiring low income workers, it funds abortions, it has the cornhusker kickback, the louisiana purchase, the gatoraid. it has a new federal mandate to buy insurance. there's a penalty enforced by the i.r.s. that's going to require additional 40,000 i.r.s. agents if we don't buy insurance and there will be a job-killing 8% tax on employers who don't

offer government-approved health insurance. this is wrong, mr. speaker. the people in my district want jobs. they want to be able to work and they want to see our country continue to operate the way it always has, under the rule of law, not with the majority abusing the rules. they want us to do the right kind of thing here. what do republicans support? we want legislation that will reduce the cost of health care, we want to force insurance companies to compete with each other across state lines and let people buy insurance across state lines if they choose. we want to cover pre-existing conditions. we want medical liability reform which would save tens of billions of dollars each year. and we want to expand health savings accounts which put americans in charge of their health care and their health dollars. we can could that, mr. speaker, we've passed the bill the other day in a bipartisan fashion. a page and a half bill taking

away the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies. folks on the other side said we couldn't do it but we can. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert materials related to the topic of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. fudge: thank you. the congressional black caucus is proud to anchor this hour on job creation in the african-american community. currently the c.b.c. is chaired by the honorable barbara lee from the ninth congressional district of california. my name is congresswoman marcia fudge, representing the 11th congressional district of ohio and i anchor this hour. mr. speaker, i would now like to yield to our chairwoman, the

honorable barbara lee. mr. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. first let me -- ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. first letmy take this moment to thank congresswoman fudge, for bringing to the congress really the understanding of what unemployment is, given the unemployment rates in your district, given what has taken place in ohio in terms of recession, your leadership and your commitment to turn the economy around is remarkable. we can learn a lot by what you have done in ohio and so thank you again. as chair of the congressional black caucus, i rise this evening to continue sounding the alarm about the urgent and vital need to create jobs in america, particularly for the chronically unemployed, who are dispr proportionately -- who are disproportionately suffering the brunt of this

economic crisis and who are thus in need of targeted, concrete, meaningful relief. last week, members of the congressional black caucus met with the president at the white house to discuss our jobs agenda. it was a candid, substantive conversation we had with the president. we reviewed our priorities to create jobs, especially for the chronically unemployed. we understand well that president obama inherited an economy on the brink of collapse and all he and his administration have done in working with congress to hold it together, it has been remarkable and we commend the administration for their efforts. the recovery, however from this economic crisis has been uneven at best and there's a long way to go to put people back to work. the impact of unemployment, foreclosures and the housing crisis are particularly extreme among african-americans and

latinos. people are desperate, as congresswoman fudge knows in ohio. as we try to create jobs, states are laying off people in order to balance the budget. california has cut $20 billion out of our budget. virginia will pass a state budget with $4 billion in cuts. if you extrapolate this nationally, we're talking about $200 billion state budget cuts after about $350 billion last year. we need the $200 billion this year just to break even. congressional black caucus member bobby scott, who is on the budget committee, continues to remind us of the numbers and how we need a major jobs initiative just to break even. that's why we remain labor focused on helping people who are chronically unemployed and on direct job creation.

we're hosting an event called out of work but not out of hope, addressing the crisis of the chronically unemployed. this will be held on march 17 from 9:00 to 11:00 in room 2237 of the rayburn house office building on capitol hill. the hearing will focus on data that suggests the chronically unemployed include african-americans and other communities of co-already with unemployment rates significantly higher than the national average. youth and adult workers are also in need of enhanced education and training and those who lost their jobs as a result of the weakened economy and have been unemployed for six months. wednesday's hearing is part of a five-week campaign launched at the beginning of this month to seek policy solutions for the chronically unemployed. our aim is to engage our leadership and our coalition partners in a strategy to put america back to work. we are all aware of the

starving -- the high unemployment rates facing our communities. in february, the rate of unemployment for african-americans was 15.8%, compared with 12.4% for latinos and 8.8% for whites thsms according to the bureau of labor and statistics march 5, 2010, report. the jobs problem goes deeper for many of our constituents and communities. african-americans are not only unemployed in higher number bus also stay unemployed significantly longer. of the people who have been unemployed for over six month 20,.3% of african-americans. for those unemployed for a year or many, 22.1% are african-americans. the median duration of unemployment was 23.8 weeks for african-americans and 18.4 weeks for a national average. these figures underscore the urgent need to target job creation efforts to those communities hardest hit by the recession.

this has nothing to do with directing resources based on race. this has to do with direct regular sources based on need, based on unemployment statistics and where the unemployed live. these stories illustrate the reality that many of our communities have been disproportionately hit by this recession. that's why we must simply prioritize and deliver and that's what we talked with the president about. we said specifically, we must focus on chronic unemployment. we must have direct and targeted job creation which can make a real and significant impact quickly for everyone. for instance, given the unemployment rate of approximately 10%, that's 15 million people. one percentage point of the people unemployed is about 1.5 million. at $50,000 per job, $75 billion would hire 1.5 million workers and reduce the unemployment rate by one percentage point. for $300 billion, we should be

able to hire six million workers and reduce the unemployment rate below four percentage points below what it would have been with no effort at all. we must target high areas of poverty, unemployment, and the chronically unemployed. summer jobs for young people must be part of our direct job creation efforts. we all know that many of our young people have to help pay the rent and help buy food because their parents are unemployed. we must also invest in infrastructure spending. when we do so we must assure a path to apprenticeship and preapprenticeship opportunities and infrastructure investment, otherwise we'll leave communities and millions of people behind. finally, we must ensure that contracting and procurement opportunities for minority and dizz advantaged businesses are included and that existing provisions and transportation and in other areas are in

force. according to the institute for the study of race and ethnicity which recently released its report on the impact of the recovery act, black businesses received only 1.1% and latino businesses 1.6% of all federally contracted funds. so in closing, mr. speaker, members of the congressional black caucus are committed to continue to work with congressional leaders and president obama to fix our economy and create jobs to address the true depth, mind you, the true depth of this recession. there's no question that by working together we can make a real difference in the lives of all americans. so as we work to turn the economy around and create jobs, the congressional black caucus will continue to fight, mind you to fight to make sure that no one, mind you, no one is left behind. that is our moral responsibility as the conscience of the congress. thank you again, congresswoman fudge and let me thank

congressman emoon yule cleaver who has led our jobs and recovery task force since last january and has done a marvelous job in doing that and getting us to this point. ms. fudge: thank you and i want to thank you as well, madam chair for keeping our caucus focused on jobs and poverty and of course pushing for the fundamental fairness we all deserve and what is expected of all of us in this house. i thank you for your work and your leadership. mr. speaker, i now yield to my friend, the represent -- mr. cleaver, the representative from missouri. mr. cleaver: thank you, ms. fudge. i thank you for bringing this hour tonight to talk about an important subject and i want to thank representative barbara lee for her leadership, she has been myopic in making sure not only the black caucus but none of the caucuses, nor the

democratic caucus stray too far from the main theme we've been pushing, which is we need jobs and we need them now. mr. speaker, there's little question that the economists believe that the u.s. economy is in fact in a recovery mode. there are signs all around that we are coming out of the recession. but the recession continues to take its toll on the american public. we know that jobs always lag in the recovery. in fact if you look at some of the wall street banks, you'll find that many of them actually are showing huge profits, some of the top 10 banks in the country, actually the top 25 banks, some of whom received money from the taxpayers to help bail them out. so the question today when we

still have an anemic economy is who is going to bail out the american public? well, what we do know is that the jobless rate is now still hovering at about 10%. and if you break it down, as did our chair, barbara lee, you'll find out that many african-americans are the ones who are suffering. why is that? well, it's kind of simple. the weak labor markets in our country are in areas where we generally have high black populations. south carolina is one. michigan is the other. african-americans migrated to michigan to work in the automobile industry, african-americans have been in south carolina almost since 1619, when we came to this land. and so it is somewhat

misleading to believe that we can address this issue of unemployment without some special emphasis on what's happening to african-americans who are also unemployed. when you just look at the statistics, the economists say that we need to create, just to create, 100,000 jobs a month just to absorb the new people coming into the job market. we are not creating jobs. in fact, we are -- we have not created the kinds of jobs we need for the last three decades. we have not been able to generate 100,000 jobs a month. i think the president was wise when we he submitted to congress the stimulus package. i think congress was wise, at least we were wise to vote for

it. because inside this jobs -- this stimulus package is at least the opportunity for jobs for all people, but it provides minorities with a unique opportunity to commit with what i believe and what many others believe to be the next job creator and that is in the field of energy. we have significant dollars placed in the department of energy where men and women who are citizens of our country can in fact seek new opportunities in that field. for example, i am convinced that in the days to come, men and women will call people to come out to do weatheration in their ohm -- weatherization in their homes like they call a

plumber today. they'll call a weatherization specialist who comes out, he'll find out where there's a leak, an energy leak, and fill it up. that's an entirely new arena. wholly new job area that we've not had before. but it's also important to keep in mind that technology is eliminating jobs even as we try to produce them. i used to tell my staff members how frustrated i was when i'd go to the airport, as we all do, twice a week, and look at the kiosk, which all the airlines have, and the clerks behind the counter direct you to the kiosk and i told my staff, do you realize what's happening? the people who are directing us to use the kiosk to get our ticket are also eliminating their jobs. it's just a matter of time, mr.

speaker, before we're going to go to airports that are not going to be peopled by the ticket clerks as we see today. everybody will simply go use a credit card or some special card and they'll be able to get their tickets. for most of the members of congress, most of us go to the airport with our tickets in hand anyway because you can get your ticket printed on the computer. so i think we're eliminating jobs and there is a need for us to do something and do something significant. now there are those who are saying, you know, look, the job market will take care of itself, the markets will always make -- will always engage in self-correction. and that is what has gotten us into the economic collapse that we have experienced over the

last year and a half, is waiting for the markets to do the right thing and waiting for some of the institutions that were able to function without strong regulations to do the right thing, they did not and they hurt us. we were hurt perhaps more than any other group. so what i think we are going to have to do is do a jobs bill a serious jobs bill and by the way, i was delighted that in our meeting with the president last week, that the president said to us that he strongly supports a summer youth jobs program, i thought that was the most immediate thing that came out of the meeting. why? because in about eight weeks, schools will turn out all over the united states, everywhere in this country, kids will be going home, and these kids this summer, will be going home unemployed to unemployed

parents. now, it does not take a physicist or a nuclear scientist to look at that situation and see that it is going to be chaotic at the very least. so we need a assumer youth jobs bill and we need -- summer youth jobs bill and we need it now. we need it quickly so that the bureaucrats is have things in place by the time school is out so that there won't be a long period of time during which kids are just aimlessly walking up and down the street. because we ought to have been kid -- we all have been kids and we all know that when we were not at our highest level of thoughtfulness and can do dumb things at that age. and so i'm thinking that it might be helpful if we move that summer youth jobs program to the

forefront. and i am not, mr. speaker, convinced that we don't need something else. now, i don't think we need another $876 billion stimulus, but i do believe that we've got to do something that would create jobs directly and the economist who also is a columnist in "the new york times" has suggested and i agree that perhaps we need to think about the fact that the united states government can create jobs that people can actually use. and i'm not suggesting that we need to approve money at the level that we did for the w.p.a. during the great depression in the 1929 through 1930's but i am saying that there can be some kind of direct jobs program put in place that will enable folk

to get jobs quickly. if we don't we're going to find that this job market is going to continue to hemorrhage. when you think about the fact that, as congresswoman lee mentioned earlier, that the states are laying off employees, cities are laying off employees, by the time we find employment for those government workers on the local level who lost their jobs to get some kind of job we still have not done much because we haven't dealt with the people who have been on the unemployment rolls in my committee last week, ms. fudge, we had a person who testified before the select committee on climate change and energy independence who said that he was opposed to giving employment insurance. he also went further to say that if you give unemployment insurance it will make people lazy. somebody like me who spent time

growing up in public housing and heard people saying that welfare people loved to have babies so they could get another $100 a month is almost laughable but it is also believed by many. and so we need to keep in mind that there will always be pushback against what we are trying to do. but the american public needs to go to work. right now. and most economists believe that unemployment will continue at at least 8% or higher into 2012. and we can't afford to have that size of our population without employment. it is, you know, dehumanizing when you can't take care of yourself and we're going to find more and more people doing what i have seen in kansas city at the church my son pastors where

middle class people, people who were in the u.s. middle class are now unemployed. we have had ph.d.'s coming to my office trying to get an internship just so they can get in and hopefully get a job. so, when people say that, well, the -- there's jobs out there for everybody, they just need to go and get them, that's ludicrous. it was ridiculous. and it plays the american public as fools because they're real human beings with real families who are losing their homes. what people don't realize is when you lose your job, you can't make your mortgage payment. you can't make your mortgage payment, you lose your home. you lose your home, your credit is ruined, you can't buy a car, you can't hardly buy anything, even today with an 800 credit score you're barely going to be able to buy a new car. so i think we're having a recovery but the recovery is not strong enough and is not moving

quickly enough. so, congresswoman fudge, i appreciate the fact that this issue through you getting this before the american public tonight is going to resonate with a lot of people who are unemployed, but it will also resonate, i hope, with men and women of goodwill who believe that the american public must always take care of the american public. i yield back. ms. fudge: thank you. and i want to thank my friend, mr. speaker, for just saying to us in a very clear and concise way that it is time for us to be honest about where we find ourselves as a nation. and that it is important that people be given an opportunity, just an opportunity, not a handout, an opportunity, to find work. because if we don't, we will have more problems than we can ever imagine. not only does it take a toll on the wallet, on your home, but on your physical and mental health. so i certainly do hope that we will take heed to the things that were said by our chair

tonight as well as by representative cleaver and start to move in a direction that is going to positively impact the people of this country. and i thank you both for being with me tonight. thank you. mr. speaker, the c.b.c. believes that stable employment at a fair wage is a fundamental right for all americans. in times of economic weakness, especially at this recession, government should empower our nation's work force by providing training and placement opportunities for dislocated workers. during the month of march the c.b.c. will engage in a five-week campaign to seek policy solutions for the chronically unemployed, engaging president obama, congress and the coalition partners in a strategy to put americans back to work. the chronically unemployed are not counted by labor statistics, mr. speaker. they're not counted in the work force investment act, which is designed to give people back to

work -- get people back to work. congress inadvertently sent them a message that they don't count. but they do count. and they want to work. the c.b.c.'s agenda, opportunities for all, pathways out of poverty, focuses on six areas. education for low income communities, increasing the reach of economic security, eliminating health disparities, providing affordable housing options, reforming our judicial system to break the cradle to prison pipeline and addressing global poverty. during tonight's special order, chairwoman lee discussed with you some of the progress we've made in our efforts in this endeavor. if you wish to receive additional information or ask for updates, you can email the congressional black caucus at congressionalblackcaucus@ mail.house.gov. let me talk about some of the

things you've heard tonight but maybe in a little different way. we know that national unemployment is somewhere around 9.7%. there are currently 15 million people seeking employment in this nation. up from 7 1/2 million in december, 2010. 2.5 million people are out of work and nine million are employed only part time rather than the full time employment they prefer and need. with the unemployment rate at 9.7%, u.s. labor market conditions are certainly grim and we all, i think, can agree to that. the unemployed who have been out of work and searching for a new job for at least six months remains a record high at or above 27% and hitting a record 41% in january of this year. if we examine unemployment rates by a demographic information, you will see proof of the inquality of which we speak

tonight -- inequality of which we speak tonight. while all major groups have experienced substantial layoffs during this down turn, communities of color, particularly african-americans and hispanic americans, are experiencing of worst of these job losses. according to the department of labor, although the national unemployment rate was 9.7% in february, the rate for african-americans was 15.8% and the rate for hispanics was 12.4%. not only is the unemployment rate for african-americans nearly twice that of caucasians, the gap in some important demographics has widened rapidly over the past 14 months. over those months the unemployment rate for caucasian college graduates under 24 years of age grew by about 20%. the rate for african-americans in the same demographic grew by almost twice that much. data from the bureau of labor statistics indicates that the gap in unemployment rates for

communities of color is widening. as a result minority children and families are entering poverty at an increasingly alarming rate. more than 24% of african-americans live below the poverty line and are 55% more likely to be unemployed than other americans. as then candidate obama said in a speech during the democratic primary, racism issues that i believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. in a speech to the hispanic caucus institute earlier this year president obama said that when unemployment reaches over 10% among hispanics, that was not just a problem for them, it was a problem for the nation. we believe it is the same for african-americans. the congressional black caucus in its continued role as the conscious of the congress has a

moral obligation to address any inequality and injustice as never before in our history and i've been joined by my colleague and my dear friend from minnesota, mr. ellison. how are you, sir? mr. ellison: doing all right. if the gentlelady will yield. let me just point out that the gentlelady coming down here monday after monday, speaking to the nation about the agenda of the congressional black caucus is so meritorious, i salute you, thank you. but i just want to say that, look, jobs are a central component of a good quality life. in lack of a job not only means you don't have any money, it means that your life is not ordered well. it means that you are living a life where you want respect, you want to be productive, you want to make something, create something and put some value into the world and yet because you don't have that employment opportunity you're denied that. when we talk about a direct

creation of jobs, yes we're talking about stimulating demand, we're talking about putting money and food on table, but we're talking about giving people a sense of value, of worth, a sense of purpose and, you know what? that's one of the best things you can do for anyone. this is absolutely true. in the black community employment levels are elevated through team -- three times the national rate. and as you pointed out, the gentlelady from ohio, president obama's right when he said that making sure that the black and brown and people of color throughout america are working is good for the whole country. because if people of color have money they spend it, where do they spend it? in the economy. and if somebody spends money that means somebody's making money and if somebody's making money that company can use that money to hire somebody else. so this is -- this circular, this circular interconnected

nature of the economy tells us that opportunity for one is opportunity for all. and i just want to yield back to the gentlelady because i just want to thank you again, i'm going to stick with you, but i want you to know that i want to commend you for your service and your fidelity and your persistence and your commitment. ms. fudge: thank you. mr. ellison: i yield back. ms. fudge: thank you so much. i just want to say that in addition to some of the things that you said is that i see our jobs as making sure that we protect all americans. that includes us. i see our job as a congress, as a government body to protect the people who sent us here. i believe the job is to serve its people and until we do that we haven't done an effective job. that's why it's so important that we continue on this path to make sure that all americans who want a job, who need a job, have the opportunity to search -- to find a job. i mean, certainly we're not

going to ever create the kind of job that many of us had as we were growing up. i mean, our parents had jobs they kept for 30 years. they've got good retirement, they still can afford to pay their bills. those days may be gone for many people in this country but i think it is our responsibility to make sure that people can provide for their families, that people can live in a decent home. i think the bear necessities -- bare necessities are something that we should guarantee that all americans can receive. mr. ellison: the days of high-wage sector can be -- can come back if we have a national commitment to manufacturing an we don't take the position that manufacturing is something that happens overseas or something that your father or grandfather did. manufacturing is what young people today can do. we can make the windmill the solar generator, we can do

retrofitting on buildings and manufacturer the -- and manufacture the tools to make them more efficient. we can make cars that are -- in ohio and michigan and minnesota and all over this country, in a way that is fuel efficient, that consumers want them. we can do these things. as a matter of fact, our american automakers are late to the game, but they started to make fuel efficient cars, we need to make sure they continue to do that. i yield back. ms. fudge: if at some point we don't start to make things in this nation again, we'll never dig ourselves out of this hole. i'm from ohio, that's been hit especially hard. one of the biggest manufacturing states in the united states. we made our living making cars. clothes, wing ets, whatever. -- widgets. whatever.

we've lost more than 60% of our manufacturing. and a lot of it did go overseas, no doubt about that. then the other thing is it became mr high tech system of people were not, then, retrained to maintain those positions. a lot of it became automated so they downsized. but we have taken significant losses. in our state alone we lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs over the last two years. we have to find a way to get those people back in the work force. i yield. mr. ellison: the fact is the high wage sector has been the manufacturing sector, historically. there's no reason america cannot make great thing the solar panel the windmills, the fuel efficient vehicles. there's all kinds of things in the tech area. we need training and we need -- the government need to invest in an industrial policy, a manufacturing policy that says, hey, you know what, we're going to make sure america makes --

let's get the label made in america stamped on some stuff again, just like it used to be, it can be. we need to address the manufacturing policy, the trade policy, but this time around, when we rededicate ourselveses to manufacturing, let's not say that it's only for some, let's say it's for all. let's say it's not green for some, let's say it's green for all. let's not say the manufacturing renewal is for one segment of community, let's say it's for all segments of community. let's invest in making things again in ohio, minnesota, michigan, texas, all over this country and let's also say that we can use -- we can work our educational system, where we can make manufacturing and creativity a value system all over again this thing is connected to how we educate our youngsters. we've got to say stem, science, technology, math, and we've got to get into the schools and

mike sure that curriculum is available for all the kidse. ms. fudge: will the gentleman yield? you hid the nail on the head. we have to, at some point, prepare our young people for a job once they leave high school. not all children are going to college. we have to prepare young people to be able to do something when they leave high school. really all college does is prepare you to work anyway. we need to prepare all young people to work as soon as they leave high school. the only way to do that is to start to train them in the new green technologies, in the weatherization programs we put out there, to put them in positions where they can sit at a computer and do manufacturing jobs. where they can assist people who need help maybe if it's just training them to do other things. we can put in windows. we can build homes. we can do so many things. but young people have never been geared in a position to think about work after high school, we keep talking about

college. i think college is important, i am a strong proponent of education, but the reality of our lives is that fewer young people, especially young people of color, are going to college and if this trend continues with their parents unemployed, with them not being able to find jobs themselves that number is going to continue to decrease. we do have to address that in a very, very serious way and in a timely manner. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady would yield back, you know, america is crumbling. in minnesota, august 1, 2007, we had a bridge collapse, i-35 collapsed. it went over the mississippi river and it fell into that river. we lost 13 minnesotans, they lost their lives. 65 people -- in 100 people had back injuries as they fell 65 feet. you know what, i bet you in ohio and minnesota and michigan, we got more potholes than we can shake a stick at

our buildings are crumbling, our infrastructure is crumbling, we need broad band all over the country. it's not like everything is done and nothing needs to be maintained or made. we need to rebuild america. there's enough work to be done, we've just got to get about doing it. i want to point out, you know, don't be -- don't be thinking that there's not work in america. we've got work to be done here and you know what, i want to draw another part out, mr. speaker, and the gentlelady from ohio. the fact is, i was walking along cedar lake in minneapolis, you're not from the twin cities, you may not know about cedar lake, it's the land of 10,000 lakes, you can hardly walk anywhere without stepping in one of them. i sat down at a picnic table and i sat there and ate some chicken and when i got up, i saw a plate on that table,

w.p.a., 1934. that table was made by another generation where americans were out of work. americans of all colors. this time we've got americans out of work again. at that time, that generation responded to the needs of employment and to the needs of the country to be built up and we can't do any less in this day and this time and this age. we need a w.p.a.-style c.c.c. camps, direct government job creation to work ourselves up out of this recession. let me tell you, when the economy finally turns around, we're going to have some picnic tables that people in 2050 will be sitting on. we're going to have some trails that people in 2050 are going to be walking on. we'll have some bike paths, some stronger bridges, we're going to have some broadband cable laid so people can talk all over this country and be on the computer. i yield back to the gentlelady, this is a vision we need to

pursue. ms. fudge: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me take the w.p.a. one step further. i happen to have given a speech in memphis, tennessee, on saturday and found out that over the eight years w.p.a. was in existence in the state of tennessee, more than 240,000 people were hired. those people built the stadium, the soor, the juvenile center. there's so much that still exists. i want to take the training part one step farther. we need to do targeted training. i come from an area with the best health care in the world. there are a shortage of nurses a shortage of primary care physicians, there are a shortage of technicians, a shortage of orderlies, cooks, everything that you can think of that goes into a hospital or community center, there's a shortage. we have community colleges, we have some of the best educational institutions, why are we not focusing more on

filling in the shortages we need? because the jobs are there for them to take. that's what we need to be focusing on, as opposed to summer things that are not going to be helpful. i believe any skill you have can help you, but if we know jobs are available in the health profession, we need to be focusing on health professions. if we know jobs are available in steel, which we don't have a lot of steel anymore, but we still do have some of those things, let's train in those areas. we've got the training money we put all this money into the recovery act, let's make sure once we spend it, the outcome is going to be what we want it to be. i yield. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i'm glad you mentioned steel. there's no reason in the world we can't make more steel in america. we've make steel in minnesota. we make some of the highest quality steel in the world.

if you've -- if you real yayi want to make something that's going to have to last and have a lot of integrity, this is where you want to get the steel from. yet we're building bridges and roads all over the country importing steel from other places. let's make the steel here, adjust our trade policy to make sure we've got a fair, even, level playing field. ms. fudge: will the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: yes, ma'am. ms. fudge: you talked about infrastructure twice and it's so significant, we know we need to shore up our infrastructure, we need to do it. we need more apprenticeship programs for young people to learn to build roads and bridges. we need programs to teach people how to paint bridges, repair bridges, lay asphalt, concrete, steel, rebar, whatever we need to do. that is happening across the country and we need to make sure there are programs in place for young people to learn

to do those jobs. they are well-paying jobs, they are jobs they'll have a lifetime. from our communities, we're always going to be fixing roads, we're always going to be fixing bridges. i think it's important to start to try to say to these people that it's important that this be an opening for young people to get into these trades. i yield back. mr. ellison: will the gentlelady yield for a question? ms. fudge: i will. mr. ellison: do you think the congressional black caucus has a vision for america to put america back to work, and do you think constituents of all colors, faiths, cultures, can be trained to do the work that needs to be done to rebuild america? ms. fudge: will the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: yes, ma'am. ms. fudge: there's no doubt in my mind, it's a plan we've presented not only to the president but to other members of this body to other institutions and agencies we have worked with and collaborated with. we have come up with something

that i think is a can't-miss. i do believe it is time for our plan to be reviewed and to be moved forward. we have a good plan. we can put people back to work. i hope that other colleagues will join with us in making sure we do that. mr. ellison: will the gentlelady yield? so the plan the congressional black caucus is offering is not just for the african-americans, it's for the whole country, is that right? ms. fudge: absolutely right thefplg only thing i'd say about this plan is it talks about not only how to get all americans back to work but how do we get those people who are been unemployed for so long or those people who are in such pockets of poverty, how do we lift them to the same level as all the others. mr. ellison: so that kind of vision, that's the kind of thing we need more of around here. the black caucus does believe, you know, that opportunity is -- doesn't know a co-already,

count know a culture, doesn't know a face. we all have to do better. when we all do better, we as america, we must make sure we're tapping the talents of everyone, whether that person is african-american, living in the inner city or rural area or a suburb or any person that we can't leave our talent behind. we don't know where the answer to cure cancer is. it might be locked up in the mind of a little black girl in cleveland somewhere, and she just needs development of her talents. does the black caucus believe that's true? ms. fudge: will the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: yes, ma'am. ms. fudge: in this global economy in which we leave, we need every single american to bring that which they are good at because if they don't, we are going to start to find ourselves not being the number one nation in the world anymore. we're not going to be the nation that brings forth all

the new technology all the new research, all the new things that we know are going to move and drive this country. so i think it is imperative that every single individual, and we know every individual has worth, but we certainly need to say to them, whatever it is that you can do, we need it as a nation. that's what's going to make us strong. that's what keeps the chains strong. i think that we are in a place where we just must continue to work with every single person in this nation. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady will yield, i want to offer the idea that, tonight, we're talking with the congressional black caucus hour, talking about jobs for americans, talked about infrastructure, talked about manufacturing, talked about the need to address trade policy, talked about a progressive vision that the congressional black caucus is offering for america, to address not only joblessness

but long-term joblessness, but i should mention we're relying on our small businesses and entrepreneurs to get into this fight and get people employed as well. that's why i was pleaed to hear certain members of the congressional black caw us -- caucus bring up with the president streamlining the s.b.a. if we get small business into this, they'll hire quicker than big businesses. big businesses, when they hire somebody, they give the people they already have overtime, make them work more hours, often. so that's why we often see employment as a lagging indicator, whevpb the g.d.p. is improving. if we can get the small business to get some loans, that might be something that could really spark up the economy so i was very pleased to hear chairman benny thompson make this point because i think

the small business development has got to be a key strategy we pursue in getting america back to work. i yield to the gentlelady. . ms. fudge: small business growth that is where most of our people are employed. we have to do it fairly. for those people who might be watching us for the first time, we don't just represent african americans or just minorities. there are very few of us in this entire caucus that represent african americans. so no one should feel that we are excluding any other group of people. we want all of our people in need to be served by what we do. so it is important that we talk about small businesses, that we talk about contractors and how they are handled and treated in this country, minority and

non-minority, women-owned businesses. we will help and bring this country back. we do represent so many people. we represent all people. mr. ellison: i only have comb 10.2% of my constituents who are african americans. and i would say clearly 80% of my constituents are white. we have a diverse community. we have new americans. we have latino, we have different people from russia, we welcome them. but the black caucus is made up of african-american members. this is rooted in the 1960's. but the truth is, there are a lot of people who are white in this u.s. congress who represent a great deal more black people than i do. so we always have a focus on what's good for the whole

country, what's good for america, persistently unemployed. but it's also true that our country does have a particular history as it relates to opportunity. and when we work for opportunity for all people, it enhances america and makes america better and helps people who have been on the more challenged end of the lack of opportunity. this is something we stand up for. ms. fudge: i probably represent one of the most diverse districts in this house and i'm very proud of it. what i know, though, is that the people who have the least are the people who need me the most. so i do focus more on the poor. i focus on children in need. i focus on the hungry. but so do all the other people in my district that makes me so proud. when you look at how we try to

pull together, that is what has impressed me about all the people i serve. we understand the necessity of pulling up and helping our neighbor and i'm proud that i represent people such as that. mr. ellison: we have dynamic districts. we have a lot of smart people, good ideas coming from all places all the time. even this morpg, i was lucky enough to -- morning, i was lucky enough to talk to some of the people in the business community and listened to their views as to how to generate employment. these are people that are working small businesses and fortune 500 companies. all of them want to help with this job gap. and one of them said, you know, we used to say that 5% unemployment was terrible. but, in fact, some economists

are say it's 7%. it would be a shame if we tolerate that and fight that and want to get every american back to work. ms. fudge: i want to make this comment and i yield to my colleague from texas. certainly, there is some recovery going on in this country. we just don't want people who need it the most to be left out of it. i thank you for sharing this time with me. i'm impressed by your passion and your ability to articulate your position. i yield to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady from ohio. let me bring you greetings from

the component of the national league of cities of african-american city league council of mayors. and i know congresswoman lee and congressman cleaver have come. let me add to the cry and desperate need for the work for the unemployed. we must focus on this effort. i met with my local governmental agency that receives federal funding and they're begging not only for the chronicically unemployed but from the work of the congressional black caucus for those who have been left along the wayside. we understand the importance of making sure that everyone has a job. i stopped calling the recovery act a stimulus. i call it development in people.

i don't want anyone to be called it a stimulating bill. it is putting people back to work. we want to make sure those people who have been unemployed for a long period of time, who still have hope and still have abilities, to make sure that those who have paid their time and helped rehabilitated and have families and who may have deficient yated from the straight road, but are now trying to ensure that their families are taken care of, ex-felons should be able to have training. we want to work with unions that they open the opportunities for people to be trained and we want to make sure that small and minority businesses who are the backbone of this economy in terms of employment get the opportunities through transportation infrastructure rebuild to be ailed to

participate in the contractal process and go into our communities and build. i want to say it can be a real partner to us and be a recruitment. and i have spoken to the pastors. they are eager to provide resources and sites and populations of those who can be employed. this is a crucial effort that the congressional black caucus is initiating. on wednesday, we will be speaking truths to power and talking about the chronically unemployed. maybe we cannot do the w.p.a. as we did after world war ii, but make sure there is an opportunity for every single american to have a job. and i would say in closing that the challenge is not hard, because we are talking about census track. and census track has it from all

walks of life. they are latinos, african americans, asian and talking about going into the census track that are documented as impoverished and get those people who want to work, who can work. if we provide them with the opportunity for income, they are ready and circulating the dollar inside our community. if we give small businesses the opportunity, they are growing, multiplying, they are placed inside those communities. if we give them the boost that they need to have, an opportunity to get young people not only committed to work and understanding what work is, be able to buy school supplies and uniforms, i think this effort is long overdue. i look forward to working with president obama and the congressional black caucus and i

thank congressman fudge and finally, what i would say is, i want to thank -- but jack yates won the state championship for basketball and they are rated as the number one high school basketball team in the nation. i only cite them to say our young people are not your yesterday. they are our today. as they play sports and they are geared as we want them to do, let's give them the opportunity to work and invest in themselves and help them go forward towards a college education. i'm excited about what we're doing and we cannot forget those who have been forgotten for too long. i believe our theme should be the chronically unemployed, but today, we must answer theestion

opportunities for them and i yield back. ms. fudge: thank you for joining me. it is a pleasure to have your insight. you are just so very good at making the american people understand what the situation is and how we might correct it and i thank you as always for helping me to formulate some of the ideas that i have as well. and i do want to reinforce something, mr. speaker, that my colleagues said, and we have to pay particular interest and concern to ex-felons and unskilled workers because they are the ones who are at the bottom of the barrel and we have to find a way to get them gainful employment and make them feel useful and provide for their families. ms. jackson lee: if the gentlelady wol yield, two points i want to make. the community college system we have heard is now expanding

because everyone wants an opportunity to be there and be trained. i hope we will be able to have in our package the unemployed getting unemployment and getting a scholarship to be trained, which helps their income and does not deprive them of their unemployment. and i would hope -- let me cite the houston community college system, who does a great job, that those people we talked about, can also be trained and given opportunities. let's not close any doors to the chronically unemployed. and i yield. ms. fudge: how do we make sure that ex-felons in particular are included in programs that we are funding throughout our state. it is very important that we bring that to the attention of the american people. mr. speaker, i want to thank you for allowing me to have this hour.

it has been an interesting discussion amongst our colleagues about how we do the work we do and how we are the conscience of the congress and i thank you so much. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy, the chair recognizes mr. king for half the remaining time until midnight. mr. king: i appreciate being recognized on the floor of the house. i look at the clock and there is still a lot of time, but i came to the floor, mr. speaker, to address you and hopefully the american people listening in will give some more thought to what's going on in this country and many people across america that are having trouble sleeping tonight, last night and tonight

and next night and night night. they are watching the deals that are being made. they have to guess what they are because yes they are back behind closed doors and more creative than ever before. and even though the president believed it was incumbent upon him to go through the discussion on c-span and having bipartisan discussions which took place in this city at the blair house on february 25, that didn't and solve the fact that the weekend before, and probably while the discussions were taking place and certainly after, there have been all kinds of back room bahraining and deals taking place. they have the points that the president made. the american people are watching what is happening to our liberty. and they are laying awake at night and talking with each other at work, at play, not over

the back yard fence where i live but further south where i live and wonder how it is that the american people have done everything that they know how to do that is legal and proper to redress their grievances with the united states congress and this congress's heart is hardened and doesn't hear the message by the american people. over and over again. it goes back to last august, right after cap and tax passed this house, a bill not led by any body and didn't exist on the floor and when the house of representatives for the first time that i know of messaged a bill that didn't exist to the united states senate, right after that, i should let that soak in, this house passed a huge bill, cap and trade, they call it cap and tax, i call it, right before we left for the

august break, a bill that didn't exist that was messaged to the united states senate, a bill that didn't exist, messaged to the united states senate. and then, mr. speaker, the debate over this national health care act began in earnest. now, the american people are apprehensive about this. they love our liberty and love our constitution, they love our freedom, as do i. and here is how this unfolded. . . we had a democrat presidential primary between hillary clinton and barack obama. hillary clinton, 15 years earlier, had done health care reform, a lot of that done behind closed doors, but at least they introduced the bill, a bill that had a flow chart that scared the living

daylights out of me, it was single payer, socialized medicine, hillary care. rejected in this congress. 15 years ago. reared its ugly head in the presidential primary on the democrat side in 2007 and twage. the challenge between hillary clointon and barack obama brought the focus on reforming health care to the -- before the presidential race. this is how these things happen. first, some experts go out and identify the problem. then the political clasp begins to churn that problem and after a while, people hear it every day and think, we must do something we must do something. we got here because that contest in the democrat primary side brought toward the health care issue as one of the top issues. whether it was that important compared to other priorities like our collapsing economy, i'd say this is not the time.

barack obama believed he had a mandate, elected president, and as a candidate and early on as a president, barack obama, mr. speaker, consistently made the statement that he's far single payer plan. single payer plan is code language for socialized medicine, for government pays everything, government writes the rules, government writes the checks, government decides who works, who doesn't. i've seen some of this language that's emerged that's been filed in this congress clear back as early as 1981 that says we establish a national health care service and everybody working in health care will be either a salaried or hourly employee. meaning if you're a brain surgeon you don't get to charge for your service, you get a check from the government once a month and you operate on as many brains as you can. that's canadian style, it's german style, it's british style, it's european union

style. we know that canadian style isn't something all canadians want to live. with the prime minister of few -- of newfoundland and labrador, his name is danny williams, he needed heart surgery and if he had submitted to the heart surgery available to him in can dark they would have had to split his sternum and that was a long recovery process, and it's painful. but the specialist, i believe it was in mount sinai in miami, had a procedure to go in under the arm, separate the ribs and do the surgery the recovery is a lot quicker. what does the wealthy prime minister of newfoundland and labrador do? he walked away from the canadian system and flew down to miami and paid for his surgery out of his pocket. that's canadian access to

american health care. no one has told us where we're going to go for our health care if we morph into the canadian-german-united kingdom model. no one that's proposing socialized medicine, government-managed everything, has pointed to a single nation that has produced a model of health care insurance and delivery system that they can point to and say, we want to emulate that, we want to model that. no, of all the experimenting going on in the world, and the experiments haven't worked out for the rest of the world, mr. speaker, i happen to have an example of how poorly those experiments worked out in the rest of the world. this would be the survival rate chart comparing the countries by color and if you look at the blue, the mauve, i guess that would be, the yellow and the light blue, it goes left to

right, united states, then canada in the reddish, europe in the yellow and then england in the lighter blue or the green. here are the types of cancer and the survival rates. prostate cancer, united states, 91.90%, call it 92% survival rate for prostate cancer. as po o posed to canada, 58%, europe, 57%, and england, 50%. 50% or 51%. that's prostate. clearly better than anyone else. breast cancer, united states above everybody else, the competition is pretty close between us and canada. and then you underline all men's cancer lumped in cogget, -- lumped in together. americans, 66%, on down to 53% for can tark 47% for europe and

44% for england. a little different configuration for all women's cancer but still the united states survival rate is better. these are the outcomes we get. and the innovations americans are providing are being utilizes in these countries, they're not using them as effectively or innovating like we are. president obama believes he had a mandate to produce a single payer plan to emulate one of these systems that clearly by survival rates are failures. we have the best system in the world, the best outcomes in the world and yes, we are spending a lot of money. we're a nation that makes a lot of money. we're apparently willing to pay that. so the president made this argument. the economy is collapsing. and we have to fix the economy. poth because ma again, mr. speaker. we can't fix the economy without first fixing health care.

because health care costs too much money. so the president's solution is throw another $2.5 trillion at a government takeover of health care, spending too much money, you solve the problem by spending a lot more money. that doesn't pass a third grade logic test but somehow the argument drifts off into the distance and we operate on that premise as if it were built on some kind of logic. it's not. second argument the president made is that we need more competition in health insurance companies. so the president wants to establish, he didn't get it done over here, over there, but the president want it isest b -- establish an extra health insurance company that is the federal government. and so you won't hear this number very often, it's not something that would ever come out of the white house, the number of health insurance in the united states, 1,300 health insurance companies in the united states. now, we can't buy from all of

them. because some of them are health insurance companies within the state that market to the residents within those states because they're prohibited from selling insurance outside of state lines system of, for example, a young 25-year-old man in reasonably good health in new jersey would be piing $6,000 a year for health insurance policy, where if he were in kentucky, he could be a similar but not identical policy for around $1,000 a year. if you let the young man in new jersey buy his insurance from kentucky, he'll buy the kentucky insurance, the cheaper insurance. excuse me. so the president, though, his solution is to create another health insurance company, so we can have 1,301 health insurance companies, just one of them would be the federal government. and of the 100,000, 100,000 possible health insurance varieties to choose from, president's policy, his company would produce, pick your number

10 or 15 policies, so we would add a little bit to the number of choices we we have there but not to the competition. meanwhile, the most expensive, unnecessary thing we have are the lawsuit abuse and -- in health care and the defensived me sip that necessarily must be part of it. if you look at the numbers on the range they go down to as low as 5 1/2% of the overall health care costs are attributed to lawsuit abuse, much of it going into the pockets of trial lawyers and that number goes on up to 35% or so. the dollar figure that i would anchor do is health insurance underwriters number .5% of overall health care costs. $207 billion a year. unnecessarily being wasted. a lot into the pockets of trial lawyers, a lot being spent on defensive medicine. that's $207 billion a year,

government reform committees produce a report that showed it was at $210 billion a year. those numbers go up to $650 billion a year system of there's the range. i'll just take us back down to $207 billion. that's a number i think is entirely defensible and very conservative and if you calculate that for the duration of the bill, that's $2 trillion over the course of the bill. so the president is going to solve the problem of spending too much money by spending more and he's going to solve the problem of not having enough competition and health insurance by creating a federal health insurance company and regulating all the other insurance companies. if they regulate the other insurance companies the way they're regulating toyota right now, you can see how they can compete in the marketplace. but mr. speaker, that's the framework of how we got here. it's on two flawed premises. one, we spend too much money and the solution is to spend a lot more and the other is, we

don't have enough competition in the health insurance industry, so the solution is, create a federal health insurance company. the solution is allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, fix the lawsuit abuse, reform the lawsuit abuse, provide for full deductibility for everybody's health insurance. i'd be so happy to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend from iowa for hosting this special order tonight at a late hour. but it's important. it's important that we use every hour this week to stop what really is just a terrible attack on the health care of this country. my -- when i came here 15 months ago, i came out of health care. my 28 years working in nonprofit community health care, serving people who were facing life-changing disease and disability. and i came here with a commitment, there were some things we could do to improve the system we have.

i have that same commitment today. i came here with almost 30 years of experience, 30 years of pride in the health care system that we have. how we meet the needs of the people that have needs. people with different means as well. many processes we have, probably over -- somewhere almost two dozen rural hospitals in my district. we also have other great facilities such as federally qualified medical centers that meet people's needs that frankly don't is a lot of means and don't have a lot of money to put toward health care but they have access to quality health care. that's one of the things that disturbed me since this debate began. this debate the president and speaker made this debate about access to health insurance. that's the wrong debate. absolutely wrong debate. we should be talking about, and from day one should have been talking about, access to quality health care. that's what americans want. that's what republicans are committed to. those are the proposals we put

forward back in july. my good friend hit on -- he said a very important word when it comes to health care in this country, serving our citizens, that's innovation. the united states of america is a country of innovation when it comes to health care. the system we have allows us to find procedures, treatments, medications, even just medical equipment, new innovations that frankly help the survival rates that you refer to, many of those contribute to the lower survival rates for cancer in the united states of america, innovations that help in he covery. once we help people survive, tell people to rehabilitate to recover to get back to the things they did in their lives, to be able to return to work, return to a productive life, which is what everybody strives to do. the equipment alone, my background was specifically

rehabilitation. durable medical equipment. wonderful innovations that help people live and age with dignity, help them stay in their own home settings so they don't have to go into any setting. that only comes from the health system we have. there's four principles i've led my life by as a health care professional and vo guided me in this debate in 15 months. that is, we need to do everything possible to first of all lower the cost of health care for every american. we need to strive to increase the access to quality health care for all. we need to improve on the quality and the innovation that we've enjoyed in this country but we can do better and the fourth principle for me is to strengthen our decision making relationship between the patient and the physician. not allowing the government or bureaucrat to assert themselves in that decision making process. yet as i look at what was the

poe pelosi health care bill and what i look now is the senate health care bill, i see, as i tear that apart, and not as a republican, not as a partisan but as someone who spent their lifetime dedicated to providing health care services and meeting the needs of people facing life-changing disease and disability, my evaluation, my assessment is these bills make all four of those dimension of health care worse. they drive up costs, we can talk more about it as we go on this evening. it will limit access. it will decrease quality in the long run. it will kill innovation which has been one of the bright spots of this health care system in this country. frankly, it provides a wedge a government or bureaucrat between the patient and physician in terms of decision making. i yield back. . reclaiming my time and thanking the gentleman from pennsylvania. we have talked these pieces

over. the principles that you laid out, lower the cost, provide for access to good care, improve the quality and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship rather than intercede in the doctor-patient relationship. all of these discussions we are making in a claim that there is a bipartisan bill out here, it's pretty interesting, some language, the shell bill has gone to the rules committee and have debated and reported a bill out of the rules committee that is designed to be the reconciliation language. but the substance of this reconciliation apparently isn't in the bill. only a couple of pieces about that bill, a shell bill, and then pieces of h.r. 3200 that the house has passed that would be inserted supposedly as amendments -- well, it would be passed as reconciliation language that would become amendments to the senate bill. and also an attachment of

student loan provisions in there. so it finalizes the complete government takeover of the student loan program. what do student loans have to do with health care, with the takeover of our health care by the federal government, qualifies a piece of legislation before the united states senate down the hallway to meet the standards of reconciliation for the parliamentarian so that this fantastic bait and switch can take place. here are the circumstances, mr. speaker. the house has gone through great pains to pass a bill and it was very, very close. the senate wouldn't take up the house bill. the senate took up the senate bill. the house bill passed here november 7, 1 1:00 at night, unusual for this house to be in a session at a time like that.

even more unusual was the senate passing their version of a health care bill, that was on christmas eastbound morning and passed a bill with -- christmas eve morning and passed a bill. we are in a circumstance today where the senate can't pass their own version of the bill today because of the vacancy that was created by the death of senator kennedy and replaced by an appointment and then a special election on january 19 that elected scott brown. they know scott brown is a no-vote on the senate bill. here's the unique circumstance. the senate can't even pass their own version of the bill today. they can run that bill across the senate today and it would fail. the senate wouldn't pass the house version of the bill either. and so the house is being asked

to pass the senate version of the bill. the senate version they can't pass today, remember, mr. speaker. the house is being asked to pass it, pass it on faith, so this reconciliation package, this shell bill, can be brought here to the floor of the house and be passed, be sent over to the senate with the parliamentarian could rule on whether it could pass on a simple majority to circumvent the filibuster in the senate. this is scrun precedented. some would say it has happened 21 times in history. not in a government takeover of health care, not as personal and private. this is unprecedented. and then you have the slaughter rule. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: you have been here obviously serving the american people a lot more years than i have, but i have a question in this process.

obviously, we're supposed to -- and i expect friday night or saturday, the senate bill will be shoved at us and we will be forced to take a vote on that. and it will be a vote that we are supposed to take with a promise under reconciliation that all the very terrible flawed parts of this bill will be fixed under reconciliation. my question is, relying on your experience, what if reconciliation -- we take this and my democratic colleagues pass the senate bill that they don't like and do it under a false promise, what happens if reconciliation never occurs? mr. king: then i think the gentleman does know what happens. if reconciliation doesn't occur. the president will sign the senate version of the bill that would have been passed by the house and that would become law and it would be the law of the land. the law of the land would be the

cornerhusker kickback and louisiana purchase, include billions of dollars for medical health clinics in the state of vermont to satisfy the senator from vermont and six or seven other special deals along with language that would fund abortion and language that would fund illegals. that is in the senate bill. there are some margins that is not as egregious, but bart stupak has been advised there will be no negotiations on that piece that the senate version of the bill that funds abortion is what they're going to stick with here in the house and will be forced to put up a vote yes or no. that is on the cusp of becoming the law of the land and the effort to produce this house version of the fix, which, by the way, i reject it all in any

combination. just the idea of circumventing the rules -- they are trying to amend a bill that is not law and then the promise becomes a signed letter from 51 senators that says they will vote for a reconciliation package that will amend the bill after the fact sm the founding fathers never envisioned that there would be legislation that passed both houses of this chamber that neither house would accept. this house won't accept the senate version on its face. they'll only deal with it if there is only a reconciliation promise. the senate can't pass their own version today. they just had the votes, now there has been a special election and the american people have spoken. a piece of legislation that neither body can pass could very well become law in the very next week and this city needs to fill up with people tomorrow. i yield to the the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i appreciate my friend for yielding.

this is unprecedented what's going on, to have the leaders in congress and in the white house trying to ram through a health care bill that the majority, not just barely over 50% ks but way over 60% of americans do not want this bill passed. and yet they are forcing it through here. you wonder why would someone work so hard to push through a bill that they know is grossly unpopular. and even if you think that it is so grossly unpopular, why wouldn't you want to back up and start over? now, there have been a number of things that have been said that are not true about the senate bill. now, you could be cynical like some people and say, well, i think they are dishonest. i wouldn't say that. i think they are completely

ignorant. and there are areas of ignorance on things we don't know, but just like the crap and trade bill, we had people come down here and said this bill will not cost a single job. towards the back of the bill there is a fund created and said it was explicitty for those who lost their jobs. there is a vast ignorance from people who don't read the bills that they come down here and talk about. now, speaking of ignorance, we had david axelrod. the law of the law -- land here and he seems like a decent guy. i'm sure he didn't intend to deceive, he said the law of the land that federal funds should not be used for abortion services.

there's nothing in the proposal that he, obama's advanced, there's nothing in what would be approved by the congress that would upset existing status quo. and i appreciate my friend for yielding because there are three things about this bill that allow for the federal funding of abortion and ng fact can require it. number one, until now, all plans regulated by the house of personnel management have been required to exclude non-fdly covered abortions. so the senate bill allows all but one of the federally subsidized health care plans to cover abortion. now, you may have one plan that doesn't take care of people like it needs to. we'll offer one plan over here that probably no one will buy that will not cover abortions, but the plan that may well be what most people need will cover

abortions. so if you want to buy the plan that you're going to need, then you're going to have to cover abortions. that's one thing that's very clear. that's one way. second way, under the senate bill, it authorizes and properties billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of appropriations bill covered by the higher dependent and the billions of dollars that's here -- this is under section 10503 community health centers and the national health centers -- i don't want to make the president look bad, subsection b funding, authorized to be appropriated and there is appropriated out of any monies in the treasury to the chc fund and then subsection

1 of that to be transferred to the secretary of health and human services and then these amounts, $70000 million, $800 million for 2012. $1 billion for fiscal year 2013. $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2014 and $2 thoin 9 billion for fiscal year 2015. the reason that's significant, the hyde amendment only pertains to money appropriated actually appropriated in the labor and h.h.s. bill. this money is not being appropriated in the labor and h.h.s. bill. it is not covered by the hyde amendment. and that's why i'm sure it's got

to be ignorance instead of a lie that david axelrod is demonstrating. he doesn't realize that it's money appropriated through labor-h.h.s. this is separate money that is not restricted and so it can go to community health centers to provide abortions. that is allowed under this bill and people need to understand that. mr. king: senate version of the bill -- is that out of the house or senate version? mr. gohmert: this is the senate bill. this is the one that the house is expected to vote on this week, maybe saturday. this is the bill that the house is going to vote on. anyone who comes in here who thinks they have been sold a bill of goods. so often, if you don't read the bill and allow someone to tell you who you think may have read the bill, oh, no, it doesn't change existing law, they just

don't know. it does change existing law. you have to read it and understand the implication, the hyde amendment what's covered and the implication here. but there is anything, too, section 1303 of the senate bill only limits the direct use of tax credit to fund abortions. the credit could be used to pay premiums for health care plans that allow abortions. so the federal tax law, the federal tax dollars through their credits, are going to fund health care plans that allow abortion. that's a third way that the senate bill we are going to vote on at the end of this week will fund abortions. i know people who think that is a great thing to fund abortions with federal funds. me and my friends here believe

that's not appropriate, to take money who believe it's murder to kill an unborn child and take their tax dollar and pay for abortion. that's been the law of the land for 30 years and it has changed dramatically by the senate bill. and people need to understand. if they're going to vote for this bill or they're going to vote for a rule that is self effect you ating, they will bring into effect a dramatic change on the federal law on abortions. . mr. king: having done this analysis you've done, can you imagine this is just an innocent mistake made by the drafters? mr. gohmert: i can imagine it's an innocent mistake by those who are talking about the by i do not believe it's an innocent mistake by those who drafted this bill.

it's unfortunate. we don't know who they are. we were not privy to those private sessions that were not under c-span cameras, that were not covered, reporters not allowed, nobody was allowed to see. certainly there was no republican in the house or senate that was allowed in there when this stuff was drafted. so, yes, i think it can be an innocent mistake. i believe it is by many who don't realize what this does. but it certainly to answer the gentleman's question, it's certainly not innocent by those who drafted this to spend billions in tax dollars of tax money that can fund abortion. mr. king: reclaiming my time, imposing -- posing another question for the gentleman from texas, the judge, that is was there an opportunity, would there be an opportunity, for any member of the house of representatives to offer an

amendment to fix those provisions to abortion is not funded under the senate language of the bill? mr. gohmert: my understanding is we're not going to be given the opportunity to amend the bill here in the house. the house will have to pass the bill exactly as the senate did and actually, there was an effort in the senate to amend the bill, to put stupak type language in there and they voted it down. why would anybody in the senate fight that kind of battle and work so hard to try to get that kind of stupak-lang -- stupak language in the senate bill and go to the grueling fight they had to get it in there if it was unnecessary? >> will the gentleman yield in mr. gohmert: i will. mr. thompson: i believe some of our colleagues across the aisle

are looking to vote for this senate bill and may agree with us on abortion and how wrong that is under the promise, the promise that it'll be fixed through a reconciliation bill. i want to talk a little bit more about what the probability of that is. we're going to be relying on the senate to bring a bill to us, pass a reconciliation bill to make these mixes that they're putting together these sweeteners these promises. best of my knowledge right now, we've passed a number of bills in this chamber in the last 15 months. by my calculations, we've sent over 200 bills to the senate that are just lingering in the senate. they haven't taken action on them. if there's 00 bill there is already that they haven't taken action on, what is the probability, what is the chance that they'll do a reconciliation bill that would make these fixs? i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i think we should spend a little

time on the slaughter rule. before i go to that, i want to make the point that, mr. speaker, i anticipate there'll be a lot of americans in washington, d.c. tomorrow. i believe there are a lot of americans who have come in tonight to be here to stand up for their liberty and stand up for their freedom and stand up for their constitution. they've done this on 9/12, april 15, again in december on the senate side. then they went to massachusetts where we received an intervention in massachusetts. now it's up to the american people to defend our freedom and inler -- liberty and protect our health care. one of the other maneuvers that's not off the table yet and the majority leader last friday talked around it every way except taking ate off the table. that is the slaughter rule. named for the chair of the rules committee who proposes that rather than requiring

democrats who don't want to vote for the senate version of the bill to vote for it, vote it up or down, they're afraid it would fail, i don't think they're worried about making them vote for it, i think they're afraid it would fail, but they would bring a rule that would deem the senate bill had been before the house and been passed. they wouldn't have to vote on the senate bill they would pass a rule that would deem it had been passed, so it would never be a recorded vote here in the house. that way they could get it off the decks and over to the president's desk where he is salivating to sign anything that says national health care. 've another -- we have another experiment on -- expert on the floor tonight, i'll go to the first texan before i yield to dr. burgess. mr. gohmert: i appreciate that and my friend dr. burgess has probably done more work in the area of health care reform and potential legislation than anybody i know of in the house

so it will be great to hear from him tonight. i think it was critical and it is critical for people to understand who they -- who are really wrestling with whether or not they can satisfy their conscience in their concern over federal tax dollars being pried out of people's hands to fund abortions against their will. it's important that those people understand that david axelrod apparently, we're told he's an honorable man, so are they all so are they all honorable men, but he was apparently ignorant of the law of which he spoke because he's just wrong, completely on three counts and so if anybody is trying to salve their conscience over federal funding of abortion, they need to understand there are three ways that federal funding will pay for abortions if this senate bill is passed. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. king: reclaiming my time,

thanking the gentleman from texas and yielding to dr. burgess of texas, who constantly has been pounding ghens socialized medicine plan, has a meeting at 8:00 in the morning to pour some more light on the subject matter. as much time as he may consume. mr. burgess: i came down to talk about polling data in the "wall street journal" today. you know, you talk about the slaughter rule. one of the talking pundits on television tonight, "hardball," at the end of that program, the host said, it is only right that congress allow an up or down vote on this health care bill, and he called out republicans to stop obstructing. let me remind everyone, republicans are opposed to this bill, but republicans lack the number os obstruct much of anything right now. so it is an internal fight in the democratic caucus that's

obstructing this bill. it is not house republicans. true it is a bad bill. we all oppose it, as we should. but it is that internal fight on the democratic side. an up or down vote to me would mean that there be an up or down vote on some bill, not an up or down vote on a rule that deems passage of a bill that was passed by the senate on christmas eve. up and down vote means an up and down vote on an actual piece of legislation that's been filed with run of d -- with one of the clerks of either of the bodies. and i know i need to address my remarks to the speaker, mr. speaker, if i -- would just ask if you haven't thrown away your "wall street journal" from today you might want to take a look at it. there's some interesting information in here, some polling data by heather higgins and kelly ann conway, kelly ann conway has spoken to many

people here on the hill, their group is the polling company on behalf of the independent women's voice. 1,200 people were polled, 20 had voted yes for the health care bill, 15 had voted no. but the survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition far more than the polls reflect, for 82% of those surveyed, the health care bill is either the top or one of the top ways to decide who to support for congress next november. seven in 10 would vote against a house member who votes for the senate health care bill with its special interest provisions. that includes 45% of self-identified democrats. 75% of independents. 8% of republicans, which you would expect. almost half of the democrats would not re-elect a democratic member who voted for the senate bill. reconciliation poses its own set of problems. people see through that.

that is a parliamentary trick. if you're going to have an up or down vote, have an up or down vote on a bill, not a procedural motion. but here was the part that really struck me. when they looked at various demographic groups, men and women, young and old, people who voted for john mccain, people who voted for barack obama, across all demographic groups, they described dramatic puerilities, say that if the legislation doesn't pass, they will be relieved. well, i would submit that with what's left of this week and what's left of this bill, whether it's a long, hard, slog or what, we have a chance to provide relief to millions of americans by killing this bill and stopping it in its tracks. we can talk a good story about repealing the bill if it passes, the time for action is now. the action is to kill the bill. i yield back to the gentleman.

mr. king: reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman from texas for coming down and laying this part out and making it clear. to me, it's just breathtaking to think that the rules committee up on the third floor, the hole in the wall committee, the people that rarely have a reporters in the room and only once in the seven years i've been in this congress has there been a television camera in the room, people conduct themselves as if they are operating, out of sight or scrutiny of the public, would be the ones that would cook up the idea that they would bring a rule to the floor that would deem the house passed the senate bill and dodge the idea of a vote. i want to make this point over again. we're in a circumstance now where the speaker, mr. speaker, the speaker of the house seems to be compelled to bring a senate version of the bill to the floor of the house, a bill that could not pass the senate today a bill that would not pass the house today on its own merits, and in order to get a

bill to the president's desk that they can chase with amendments to fix the bill, according to them, fix it, i don't think it fixes it, i think it makes it so they can get the votes done, and they don't want to face the vote on the first senate version of the bill. it's completely ironic that the house has oto pass the senate version of the bill that the senate couldn't pass because the house won't pass the house version of the bill but the house won't vote on the senate version of the bill that the senate can't pass so they'll pass a rule instead that deems that the bill is passed, the senate bill has pass -- has passed the house. i hope that's clear, mr. speaker, because i believe i said it precisely exactly right. that's what's going on in the congress. no wonder people are revolted by the business going on here. and i don't think we actually addressed the situation on how -- i think mr. gohmert did a good job of showing us how

abortion is funded under this. but i don't think we've addressed at all, of the bill we're probably going to get, the president won't support a bill that funds illegals. well, both versions, the house and senate bills, do do that. the senate bill has tighter language than the house bill but this language that protected the american taxpayers' assets from going to benefits to illegals was in the medicaid legislation that existed for years and years, and two years ago, when the changes were forced through this house for schip, the socialized clin stile hillary care for children and their parent that piece of legislation lowered the standards for medicaid so that the proof of citizenship that did require a birth certificate and supporting documents to keep it simple is no longer required and all that's