the pride in his face as yet another group of young people set off to do good and save lives. he was also a reservist with the idf and a week after we met he was killed by a sniper near a road block along with other soldiers and civilians. mda renamed the overseas volunteer program in his memory and it has continued to flourish. when i was there in 2005, i met with his family. his parents were committed to continuing to support mda in its mission and so was i.. that is why i spend years urging the international red cross, rounding up votes, urging legislation to send messages to

geneva to admit mda as a full voting member and finally with your help in 2006, we succeeded in writing that wrong -- it righting that wrong. [applause] as a senator from new york, i was proud to be a strong voice for israel in the congress and around the world, and i am proud that i can continue to be that strong voice as secretary of state. . .

in 2008 i told this conference that barack obama would be a good friend to israel as president. he would have a special appreciation of israel because of his own personal history, a grandfather who fought the nazis in patton's army. president obama and his family have lived the diaspora prints. as he told you himself, he understands there is always a homeland at the center of our story. as a senator he visited israel and the families whose houses were destroyed by rockets. as president, he has supported israelin word and deed.

under president obama's leadership we have a reinvigorated the consultation, redoubled efforts to ensure that israel has a qualitative military edge, and provided nearly $3 billion in annual assistance. in fact, -- [applause] as rosy or howard told you, that assistance increased in 2010 and we have requested another for 2011. [applause] something else i want you to know. more than 1000 united states troops participated in the juniper cobra ballistic missile defense exercises last fall, the

largest such drill ever held. [applause] president obama has made in achieving peace and recognizing secure borders for israel a top administration priority. but the u.s. has also led the fight in the international institutions against anti- semitism and efforts to john's the legitimacy of the nation's state of israel. did leave a conference and repeatedly voted against the deeply flawed goldstone report. [applause] this administration will always stand up for israel's right to defend itself. [applause]

and for israel there is no greater strategic threat than the prospect of a nuclear-armed iran. elements in their government have become a menace, but to their own people and to the region. iran's president foments anti- semitism, denies the holocaust, threatens to destroy israel, even denies that 9/11 was an attack. the iranian leadership funds and arms terrorists who have murdered americans, israelis, and other innocent people like. it has waged a campaign of

intimidation and persecution against the iranian people. last june, those marching silently were beaten. political prisoners were rounded up and abused. a third, pulse allegation was levered against the u.s., israel, and the west. people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman shot dead in the street. iranian leadership denies its people rights that are universal to all human beings, including the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear, the right to be equal, administration of justice, to express views without facing retribution. in addition to threatening israel, a nuclear-armed iran

wimbledon its terrorist clientele and spark an arms race that could destabilize the region. this is not acceptable. it is not to the u.s., not to israel, not acceptable to the region or the international community. let me be very clear. the u.s. is determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. [applause] now for most of the past decade the u.s., as you know, declined to engage with iran. iran grew more, not less dangerous.

it builds thousands of centrifuges and spurns the international committee, but has faced few consequences. president obama has been trying a different course, designed to present iran's leaders with a clear choice. we made extensive efforts to reach engage with the country both through direct communication and working with other partners to send a clear message "of boulder international obligation" and if you do, you will reap the benefits of normal relations. if not, you will face increased isolation and painful consequences. we took this course with the understanding that the very effort of the speaking engagement would strengthen our hand if iran rejected our initiative. over the last year the leaders of iran been stripped of their

usual excuses. of the world has seen that is iran, not the u.s., responsible for that impasse. with its secret nuclear facilities, increasing violations of its obligations under the non-proliferation, and unjustified expansion of its enrichment activity, more and more nations are finally expressing deep concern concerniran's intentions. there was a growing international consensus on taking steps to pressure iran's readers to change course. europe is in agreement, russia where just returned from, has moved definitely in this direction, and although there's still work to be done, china has said it supports the dual track approach of applying pressure if

engagement does not produce results. this stronger consensus has also led to increased cooperation on stopping arms shipments and financial transactions that aid terrorists, threaten israel, and destabilize the region. we're now working with partners in the united nations, a new security council sessions to show the leaders of iran that there are real consequences. the third choice is to live up to their international obligation. our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite. it is taking time to produce these sanctions. we believe at that time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts. we will not compromise our commitment to preventing iran

from acquiring these nuclear weapons. [applause] but iran is not the only threat on the horizon. israel today is confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history. the conflict with the palestinians and with israel's arab neighbors is an obstacle for opportunity for people across the region. it also threatens the long-term future as a secure and democratic jewish state.

the status quo is unsustainable for all sides. promises only more violence and unrealized aspirations. staying on this course means continuing conflict that carries a tragic human cost. israeli and palestinian children alike deserve to grow up free from fear, and to have that same opportunity to live up to their full, god-given potential. there is another path, one that leads towards security and prosperity for israel, the palestinians, and all people of the region, but it will require all parties, including israel to make difficult, but necessary choices. both sides must confront the reality that the status quo of the last decade has not produced long-term security, or

serves their interests, nor has it serve the interests of the u.s. it is true that heightened security measures have reduced the number of suicide bombings and given some protection and safety to those who worry every day when their child goes to school, there has been goes to work, the mother goes to market. there is a belief among many that the status quo can be sustained, but the dynamic of demography, ideology, and technology make this impossible. first, we cannot ignore the long term population trend the

results from the israeli occupation. as the defense minister and others have observed, the in exorable mathematics of demography are hastening the hours @ which israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and remaining true to the dream of a jewish homeland. given this reality, a two-state solution is the only viable path for israel to remain both a democracy and a jewish state. [applause] second, we cannot be blind to the political implications of continued conflict. there is today truly a struggle

may be for the first time between those in the region to accept peace and coexistence with israel, and those who reject it and seek only continued violence. the status quo strengthens the rejectionists the claim that peace is impossible, and it weakens those who would accept the existence. -- would accept co-existence. that does not serve the interests of israel or our own. those who are willing to negotiate to show results. those who preach violence must be proven wrong. all of our regional challenges confronting the threat posed by iran, combating violent extremism, promoting economic opportunity becomes harder if the rejectionists growing power and influence.

conversely, a two-state solution would allow israel's contribution to the world and greater humanity to get the recognition that they deserve. it would also allow the palestinians to have to govern, to realize their own legitimate aspirations, and would undermine the appeal of extremism. i was privileged as first lady to travel the world on behalf of our country. i went from latin america to southeast asia, and during the 1990's it was rare the people and places far from the middle east ever mention the israeli/palestinian conflict. now when i began traveling as secretary of state, and i went to places that were so far from the middle east, it was the

first, second, or third issue that countries raised. we cannot escape the impact of mass communication, or control the images and messages that are conveyed. we can only change the facts on the ground that refute the claims of the rejectionists and extremists, and in so doing create circumstances for a safe, secure future for israel. finally, we must recognize that the ever-evolving technology of war is making it harder to guarantee israel's security. for six decades israelis have guarded their borders with joiningvigilantly.

advances in technology have meant rockets are far from their borders and with longer-range, more destructive power, they are spreading across the region. hezbollah has amassed tens of thousands of rockets on the northern borders of israel. hamas has a substantial number in gaza. they all pose a substantial serious danger. our message to hamas is clear, to renounce violence, abide by a previous signed agreements, and recognize israel. [applause] that is the only path to participation in negotiations. they do not earn a place of any

table after those changes. [applause] and i will repeat today what i have said many times before, [ jewish name] must be returned immediately and returned to his family. [applause] unfortunately, neither military action or restricting access into and out of gaza has significantly stemmed the flow of rockets to hamas. they appear content to add to their stockpile and to grow rich off the tunnel trade, while the people of gaza fall deeper into

poverty and despair. that is also not a sustainable position for either israelis or palestinians. behind these terrorist organizations and their rockets we see the the stabilizing influence of iran. reaching a two-state solution will not and all these threats. you and i know that, but failure to do so gives the extremist forees a pretext to spread hatrd and violence. in the face of these unforgiving dynamics, demography, i ideography, technology -- it becomes impossible to entrust the future of israel in today's status quo. the challenges cannot be ignored. only by choosing a new path can

israel make the progress it deserves, to ensure that their children are able to see a future of peace, and only by having a partner willing to participate with them with the palestinians be able to see the same future. now there is for many of us a clear goal -- two-states with two peoples bidding side-by- side in peace and security, with peace between israel and syria, and israel and lebanon, and normal relations between israel and all arab states, a comprehensive peace that israel, not a slogan, rooted in a genuine recognition of the right

to exist of israel in peace and security. and that offers the best way to promise in during survival and well-being of israel. that is the goal that the obama administration it is helpedeterd to achieve. george mitchell has worked tirelessly to prepare the ground for the resumption of direct negotiations beginning with the proximity talks on both sides. these talks are hopeful first up and should be serious and substantive. a ultimately, it will take direct negotiations between the parties to work through all the issues and and the conflict. the u.s. stands ready to play an active and sustained role in these talks and to support the parties as they work to resolve permanent status' issues, including security, borders,

refugees, and jerusalem. the u.s. knows that we cannot force a solution ordained the outcome. the parties themselves must resolve it. we believe through good-faith negotiation the parties can mutually agree to now come wigeons the conflict and reconciles the palestinian goals of an independent and viable state based on the 67 line with agreed swaps, and israel's goal of the jewish state was secured and recognized borders that reflect subsequent development and meet their security requirements. [applause] and the u.s. recognizes that jerusalem is a deeply,

profoundly important issue, for israelis and palestinians, for jews, muslims, and christians. we believe through good faith negotiations the parties can agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties, and six guards its status from people around the world. but for negotiations to be successful they must be built on a foundation of mutual trust and confidence. that is why both israelis and palestinians must refrain from unilateral statements and actions that undermine the process, or prejudice the outcome of talks. when a hmas-controlled municipalities glorifies violence and renames a square after terrorist, the families on both sides who have lost loved ones over the years in this

conflict -- [applause] and when instigators mis-characterize the rededication of the synagogue in the jewish quarter of jerusalem's old city and call upon their brethren to defend nearby muslim holy sites from so-called attacks, it is purely and simply enact of incitement. these provocations are wrong and must be condemned for needlessly inflaming tensions and endangering prospects for comprehensive peace. it is our devotion to a two- state of come that lead us to condemn the announcement of plans for new construction in east jerusalem. this was not about wounded

pride, nor is it a judgment on the final status of jerusalem which is an issue to be settled at the negotiating table. this is about getting to the table, predicting an atmosphere of trust around it, and remaining there until the job is done. new construction in east jerusalem or the west bank undermines that trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step. both sides say they want the negotiations and need them. it exposes the divide between israel and the u.s. that others in the region hope to exploit. it undermines the unique ability of americans to play an essential role in the peace process. our credibility in this process depends partly on our willingness to praised both sides when courageous, and when we do not agree to say so

unequivocably. we objected to this announcement because we are committed to israel and its security which we believe depends on a comprehensive peace because we're determined to keep moving forward along a path that ensures israel's future as a secure and democratic jewish state living at peace with its palestinian and arab neighbors. because we do not want to see the progress that has been made in danger. the prime minister netanyahu and i spoke and i suggested a number of concrete steps to take to improve the atmosphere. he responded with specific actions that israel is prepared to take. we discussed a range of other measures. mitchell continue this discussion over the weekend and is continuing to meet with us

abbas today. we're making progress. i will be meeting with prime minister netanyahu later today, and president obama will meet with him tomorrow. [applause] we will follow-up on these discussions and seek a common understanding about the most productive way ahead. neither our commitment oracle has changed. the u.s. will encourage the parties to advance the prospects for peace. we commend the government of president abbas and prime minister for the improvements they have made and progress in improving the quality of life in the west. we urge them to redouble their efforts to put an end to violence continue to ensure

security and roadblock, an ingrained a culture of peace and tolerance among palestinians. [applause] we applaud israel's neighbors for the support of the peace initiative and proximity talks, but there rhetoric now must be backed up by action. they should make it easier to pursue negotiations. that is their responsibility. we commend prime minister netanyahu for embracing the vision of the two-state solution, to ease movement and lift roadblocks, and continue to expect israel to take concrete steps to turn vision into reality. to build momentum towards a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of palestinians, stopping settlement activity, addressing the humanitarian crisis in gaza. from the time of david who

accepted the united nations proposal to divide the land into two nations, leaders like sharon and others have made difficult but clear-eyed choices to pursue peace in the name of the future of israel. >> will leave secretary clinton's speech as the u.s. house is about to gavel in. we will share that later and you can watch it on line. one day after passing health care legislation -- last night, and oshawa, the u.s. house comes back and for general speeches, and then later for about six bills all dealing with veterans issues.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 22, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable ann kirkpatrick to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, for five minutes. mr. price: i thank the speaker. yesterday was an historic day in this nation. the problem for our citizens is that it was historically dark. madam speaker, it's raining here in washington today. it's raining because our founders are weeping. our founders are weeping over

the incredible vote taken yesterday that was an affront to federalism, an affront to individual liberty, and an affront to freedom. and it's distressing, so very distressing that so many citizens across this land, because they know there were positive solutions, there are positive solutions to put in place as it relates to the challenges we face in health care. as a physician, i know that when you put government in between patients and families and doctors it is destructive. destructive to the trust that we hold dear in order to bring about the greatest amount of quality health care in our land. and it was distressing on another avenue as well and that is that it was so hyperpartisan, the hyperpartisan manner in which this vote passed. you know, madam speaker, the bipartisan vote on this bill was a no vote. the vote was 219-212, all

republicans joined by 34 democrats opposing the bill. in much of the debate yesterday we heard about how it was being compared to social security in 1935 and medicare in 1965 and the moment us aspects of those votes -- momentus aspects of those votes. madam speaker, it's curious to note on those votes the house approved the medicare bill in 1965 by a vote of 313-115 with nearly half of the house republicans voting for it at that time. in the senate it was approved 68-21 with half of the republicans supporting it. a major difference between that vote and this vote. social security passed the house by a vote of 372-77 with 4-1, 80% of the republicans supporting it in the house and 75% of the republicans in the senate supporting it. so, madam speaker, it is so distressing that this bill had to be so divisive, not just for

this chamber, for for our land. the american -- but for our land. and the american people are angry because they believe that the bill passed yesterday includes any of the fundamental american principles that we hold dear for health care. affordability, accessibility, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices, all of those things that we believe ought to be in place for health care in our nation. all of them are violated by the bill that was passed yesterday and reportedly will be signed into law tomorrow by the president. madam speaker, the american people are angry. they want washington to listen. they deserve washington to listen. we are about to be a government that no longer has the consent of the govern. madam speaker, that's a very dangerous place to be. so i call on speaker pelosi and i call on the democrats, the democrats in charge in this

house to end the arrogance of one-party rule, end the tyranny of one-party rule, end what was said the only threat to this country was the tyranny of the majority. end the tyranny in the majority in this town right now. the challenges are immense and they can be solved most beneficially, respecting our founders and respecting our citizens by working together positively in a truly bipartisan way and by listening and representing our constituents. i call on the speaker for positive action, for freedom and for liberty and for democracy and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizing the gentleman from colorado, mr. salazar, for five minutes. mr. salazar: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to honor the life of doug shriver who was tragically killed with his friend ray wright on friday, march 19, while clearing snow from the roof of mr. wright's cabin above creek, colorado. mr. shriver was my friend and a tremendously respected member of the san luis valley and colorado's water community. he was only 54 years old. combined both of these men held nearly 60 years of water knowledge related to the upper rio grande basin and the state of colorado. shriver was on the colorado grand water commission and served as president of the rio fwranda water association, an umbrella organization for the ditch companies along the rio grande. all of these board portions were on the volunteer basis. doug's service on these board put him in the successful fight to keep our groundwater sought by the american development corporation and another one who

both hoped to sell it to the big cities. at the time of his death, he championed subdistricts to further protect the san luis groundwater, a concept for a groundwater culmination of fees and assessment to retire farm ground and reduce groundwater pumping to protect the aquifer. shriver was a visionary. he strongly believed that both wildlife and agriculture could live together and was the vocal advocate for the rural way of life at a statewide level. a native of eastern rio graunda valley, he farmed potatoes and small greens. he loved to ride snowmobiles and four-wheelers in the high country. madam speaker, today i also pay tribute and honor the life of ray wright, who was tragically killed with his friend, doug shriver, in the same accident while clearing snow from his cabin in creek, colorado.

mr. wright was my friend and respected in the san luis valley and colorado's water community. he was 56 years old. wright served on the rio graunda water conservation district -- graunda water conner is investigate -- grande water conservation district. and he was part of a statewide board tasked with balancing the state's water needs and had served two terms on the colorado water conservation board. all of these board positions were on a volunteer basis. i served with mr. wright on the rio grande water conservation board. his service on the board put him in the middle of san luis' valley successful fight to keep his groundwater sought by awdi and stockman water. at the time of his death, he championed the establishment, also, of the subdistrict to further protect san luis groundwater. ray was also a visionary in the san luis valley in the colorado

water community. he strongly believed that wildlife and agriculture could live together and was a vocal advocate for the rural way of life. a native of the rio grande county, he farmed potatoes and small greens. he was an outdoorsman and angler. he leaves three daughters, suzanne, sarah and laura, as well as his longtime partner, mona. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. mr. olson: madam speaker, i ask to address the house for five minutes and unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. olson: madam speaker, i don't know have a lot to say what happened last night. i'll let the numbers speak for themselves. for over $500 billion in medicare cuts for seniors. over $500 billion in new taxes

for small businesses. in my home state of texas over $24 billion in unfunded medicaid mandates. this is not the health care reform that the american people want. they want us to work together and come together in a bipartisan manner to have real solutions for their problems. we want every american to have access to quality, affordable health care. and unfortunately the majority didn't want to deal with us. but this isn't over. they got to get passed through the senate, there are going to be multiple lawsuits across the country, and they are going to have to answer to the american people in november of this year. i found it very telling at the end of the speaker's speech last night that she had shifted her conversations from health care reform to health insurance reform. this debate is about health insurance reform, it's about giving every american access to quality, affordable heal