ununthinkable. i look forward to passing a sanctions bill so the president may sign this bill into law as soon as possible. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> prges to address the house. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i just returned from my district where i had an interesting meeting with people representing one of my companies, that is one of the companies in my district that employs hundreds of people. they told me as a direct result of the passage of the health care bill and the reconciliation package, they have laid off 75 people. hundreds of jobs are in jeopardy. why? because they happen to work for a company called the ed fund, a private sector firm that facilitated the availability of college, yes, loans. 31,000 people in this industry are national park jeopardy of

losing their jobs because we decided to nationalize that industry. it's not only the wrong-headed approach to the health care problem, it is an anti-stimulus, anti-job bill. 75 jobs already lost in my district. hundreds in jeopardy, thousands across this nation. thank you very much, u.s. congress. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to express my deepest sympathy to the people of poland. polish president select kaczynski, along with his wife, maria, several leaders across the political spectrum and senior religious clergy crashed

on their way to katyn, russia, to commemorate another tragedy in poland's history. these leaders were traveling in a historic effort to heal the deep wounds of the katyn massacre in polish and russian history. this loss was not poland's alone. from the outpouring of support from our nation's nine million americans of polish descent, look those in new york's 21st district, including my own family, to the president's family, america stands next to poland in mourning. the solidarity of the polish people in their grief is an inspiration to us all. my thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost someone. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: the obama administration has steadfastly refused to contest the tariff of $2.4 billion levied by mexico because congress terminated the cross-border trucking program due to serious safety concerns. there is no drug testing in mexico. there are no hours of service requirements in mexico. there are no meaningful commercial driver's licenses issued in mexico to know what the record of these drivers are. congress overwhelmingly voted to terminate that program. but it's rumored the next month when the president of mexico comes, the obama administration will open the border to mexican trucks. jeopardizing the safety of the american public and jeopardizing millions of jobs in the trucking industry. they say they have no alternative, their hands are tied by nafta. well, there is an alternative, and today i was joined in a

letter to the president by 78 members of congress, bipartisan, saying renegotiate that one minor section of nafta that has triggered this dispute, keep the current system. the mexican trucks brings the goods in 20 miles, they drop them, the u.s. trucks pick them up and distribute it in the u.s. no u.s. company wants to go into mexico and let's keep the mexican trucks out of the u.s. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, it's not often you come to the floor of the house with joy and with sadness. and it is with both that i stand to honor a fallen friend, lenoiria dahl carter, a champion of a woman, and, of

course, someone who led in our community. dahl carter was the publisher of the forward times newspaper in houston, texas. she and her husband, julius, founded that newspaper in 1960 reporting on all of the civil rights matters, the assassination of dr. king, the 1964 civil rights act and 1965 voting rights act. and then his untimely death in 1971 calls this young woman and young mother, the mother of karen and constance, to take up the helm of this great paper. this paper became the third most read newspaper in the southwest after two of our major papers in houston, and this lady became the dolph all of us. her name clearly was a name we favored. lenoiria dahl carter, born in arizona. but she was not only a friend toward the advancement of african-american achievement. overall, she person find distinctive grace, style as a

chaplain for the common good. she was also my friend and she passed away this past saturday. we honor her, we salute her. she's a great hero of america. we will miss you. may you rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can you imagine the democratic leadership in the united states congress has given the largest tax cuts to middle-class america? well, it's certainly not the narrative that you hear out there on the television shows and some of the radio shows, but $288 billion in tax cuts for individuals of small businesses delivered with the recovery act. nearly 40% of that tax package was tax relief to middle-class families, like making the work pay tax credit. $400 for a worker. $800 per couple.

260,000 families in the 16th district are already benefiting. $8,000 tax credit for first-highly homebuyer. 60,000 people in ohio filed. expansion of the child tax credit. up to $2,500 in tax savings for a family sending their kids to college. 264,000 ohioans are benefiting. $5 billion to help businesses, $15 billion to allow companies to carry over their losses. this serves as a reminder that the recovery package was the single largest tax cut for middle-class familiar let's. remember this tax day who -- families. remember this tax day who was standing with you. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: from indiana. you know, mr. speaker, i get a big kick out of my democratic colleagues how they're doing so much for the poor, underprivileged in this country and giving all these tax cuts. the fact of the matter is the

tax cuts that were passed by the previous administration are going to expire at the end of this year, and the democrats are going to let them expire which means in effect all those taxes are going to go up. that is a tax increase. mr. volcker, who was in the carter administration, and let interest rates -- raised interest rates to 21.5% that put this country in a real economic spiral, he's going to say that we need a value added tax of about 15% to 20%, which they're probably going to pass through after the election. and a v.a.t. tax which means if you buy a $10,000 it will be $12,000. this is a tax and spend administration. we have the biggest deficits in the history of the united states. and when i hear my colleagues talking about all the good things they're doing for america, i wish they'd look at the unemployment rate and look at what people are taking out of their salaries and what this country is going through economically. it ain't what they're saying. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here to recognize the new start treaty that was recently signed by president obama and the russian president. the recently released 2010 nuclear posture review. i believe it's important to realize that the cold war is over, and it's a time to align our nuclear policy with a new generation of security threats. the biggest threat facing our country today is having nuclear materials fall into the hands of an organization called al qaeda. history has shown that building our nuclear stockpile has not deterred al qaeda and our actors trying to gain nuclear capabilities. what we do need to do is to take smart steps to prevent the

spread of nuclear weapons to those enemies and secure vulnerable nuclear materials from those who want to get their hands on that to do us harm. i believe the new start treaty and the 2010 nuclear posture review are important steps in the right direction. it's also important to note that america still has a very robust nuclear arsenal and that as we work towards a nuclear-free world we will not take any action that would put our security at risk. our country will be more, not less, secure from these new initiatives. and i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise to honor the miami child museum as they celebrate the 21st anniversary as an invaluable,

educational and cultural center in my district in south florida. i'd like to recognize the museum's stellar leadership team, including its chairman, jeff burkowitz, and the executive director, deborah spiegelman. they have fostered an environment for active learning and creative play for children of all ages. thanks to the visionary leadership of jeff and deborah, as well as the dedication of the museum's staff and volunteers, the facility is now one of the 10 largest children museums in the united states. the museum is also a leader in cutting edge children's programming on topics such as environmental conservation, green technologies and financial literacy. as a grandmother, i know firsthand how important the miami children's museum is for parents and educators seeking a safe and fun learning

environment for their learn. i wish much success to the miami children's museum as it works towards the next 25 years of service to our south florida community. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana. mr. burton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative base and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. moran, april 21 for five minutes. mr. poe, april 21 for five minutes. mr. jones, april 21 for five minutes. and mr. thompson today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman from california. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous

material. mr. skelton, missouri. ms. lee, california. ms. woolsey, california. ms. berkley, nevada. ms. sutton, ohio. mr. heinrich, new mexico. mr. defazio, oregon. mr. smith, washington. mr. sestak, pennsylvania. mr. larsen of washington. mr. taylor of mississippi. ms. sanchez of california. mr. mcmahon of new york. ms. jackson lee, texas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, for the time as well. mr. speaker, i rise tonight to acknowledge the contributions

of humanitarian and a philantropist from my area of south florida, a florida resident for over half a century, jay is known to be one of the state's leading citizens with an outstanding record of charitable projects and personal achievement. jay's involvement in our community has included leadership roles in organizations like the florida council of 100, the florida historical society, the historical association of southern florida, mortgage bankers association of america, the university of miami, the greater miami jewish federation, miami-dade arts and public places trust, mount sinai medical center, and the american red cross, among so many others. jay's participation in our community is not only matched by his involvement in the preservation of florida's dynamic history. over the years, and together with his wife, jean, jay has collected countless rare books, maps and arts that capture the

history and the culture of florida, focusing especially on the early years of european exploration. jay's collection is certainly one of the most comprehensive in the nation. in 2004, jay made an extraordinary gift to our country. he donated more than 3,000 of these rare books, manuscripts and other objects to our library of congress. known as exploring the early americas, this collection is now on display in the library's historic thomas jefferson building right across the street from us. this gift is one of the most significant gifts ever received by the library of congress. to get a sense of the extent of this collection, let me just name a few of the major pieces. a vast collection of myian cultural and religious works and carvings, the first printed nautical map of the entire world, the car at that marinea from the year -- carta marinea

from the year 1516. original documents signed by the famed employers cortes,py czarow and alaska sass. from 1598, the first at lass to include florida and those werele famed explorers, i should have said. the he narrates his wanderings across florida and the southeast at the ship wreck off the coast of the present day st. petersburg. also the 1589 hand colored engravenging by about aitiesa of st. august us tin, florida, the earliest engraving of any locate in the u.s., also one of george washington's personal journals from his time spent at mount vernon and letters from john quincy adams and james monroe pertaining to the purchase of florida and to the foreign policy of the united states. mr. speaker, these are just some

of the major items that are in jay's impressive collection. in support of this collection, the library now hosts an ongoing lecture series, program of exhibitions, research and public education program named after jay kisslack and this week the foundation held one of its annual lectures right here in washington at the library. the event included historian jonathan spens, one of the foremost experts on modern china and the professor of history emeritus at yale university. jay's philanthropy continues to ex tound in its depth and scope. through his substantial contribution, countless generations will be able to view a window into our past as americans and as floridians. jay, thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of our nation and our home community. thanks from a grateful nation. thank you, mr. speaker.

>> mr. skelton. for what purpose does -- the speaker pro tempore: mr. skelton. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. jackson lee: -- >> i ask consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: i joint with several of my colleagues today as an original co-sponsor in the introduce of hrment r. 5015, legislation that would require the president to submit to congress a plan and a timeline for the safe, orderly and expeditious deployment of united states armed forces from afghanistan including military and security-related contractors. this legislation would also implement greater oversight and planning measures to reduce our reliance on contractors in afghanistan. and to curb waste, fraud and abuse in contracting practices which continue to breed corruption at the expense of the afghan people. i'd like to thank representative mcgovern, jones and senator feingold for their leadership

and for their hard work and collaboration on this very vital legislation. also i'd like to commend congresswoman woolsey for her stand and her work for global peace and security. tonight i understand it's her 350th time coming to this floor, sounding the alarm against these wars and i'd just like to congratulate her for her steadfastness. she actually introduced the very first resolution calling for the redeployment of our young men and women out of iraq. it's been nearly a decade now since i voted against the authorization of the use of force and this was on september 14, 2001. this was an authorization, mind you, that i knew then was a blank check to wage war any time, anywhere and for any length. that was a resolution that really authorized wars without end. h.r. 5015 provides the president and the congress the opportunity

now to change the trajectory of united states foreign policy from one of open-ended military conflict towards a strategy which counters terrorism and extremism around the globe in a sustainable and more effective manner. i continue to believe the united states' economic and national security as well as our values are undermined by a military first strategy that many of us fear may lead us down a path of unending war in afghanistan. in september, 2009, general mcchrystal stated very clearly, if the people are against us, we cannot be successful. if the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful. top military officials and experts agree that winning the hearts and minds of the afghan people should be the focal point of the united states' mission in afghanistan. yet i remain convinced that this

will not be accomplished at the barrel of a gun. with every death, with each increase in troop deployments and with every additional military contractor airlifted into afghanistan we provide a rallying point for al qaeda whose propaganda dehe pends on the perception that america's -- depends on the perception that america's aim is foreign occupation. it is our stated policy and president obama has said this many times, as -- times that the united states does not seek a permanent military presence in afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, somalia or elsewhere. we've already sent more than $1 trillion to the pentagon for the ongoing wars in afghanistan and iraq and the administration has yet to provide an estimate for the long-term costs of the united states military operations in afghanistan. it's been estimated that roughly 1/3, mind you, 1/3 of every tax dollar paid by the american

people in 2009 went to the pentagon and military he-related expenditures. the fact is -- military-related expenditures. the fact is, we can't even begin to talk about reducing the deficit without talking about reducing our military spending and this legislation sets us down that path by ending a policy of open-ended war in afghanistan that has ultimately made america less safe. i've been clear in my convictions as the situation -- that the situation in afghanistan will not be resolvinged with a military solution and i think many agree with that. that's why in last october i introduced h.r. 3699 which would prohibit any funding for increasing troop levels in afghanistan beyond current levels. as a member of the appropriations committee and as congress considers the president's -- $33 billion -- the president's $33 billion supplemental request for operations in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan, i will be working to ensure that congress is

provided an opportunity to go on record regarding this grim prospect, mind you, of continued military escalation. rather than increasing our military footprint in afghanistan, studying a timeline for the redeployment of our troops and military contractors is the single greatest step we can take to empower the afghan people and their government while stripping al qaeda of our indefinite foreign military presence used to justify the insurgency and the acts of international terrorism. so i hope we pass this resolution. it provides us on the right path to getting out of afghanistan and to ensuring our national security. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton from indiana. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extends my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: there's no objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: i was in my office today, mr. speaker, and i was watching the joint economic committee and one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was talking about how

one of his employer -- one of his companies had 300 employees that were in entry level positions and they were getting minimum wage and the employer was telling him how they were going to have to lay a lot of them off because of the inability of them to get loans and for other reasons. and the reason i came down and talked about this is because there's no question that if we have a tight money policy that it's going to affect small businesses. in addition to that, when we load additional regulations and costs onto small businesses, it's going to cause them problems and they're going to have to lay people off. you know, i was reading in the paper this week, the new health care bill is going to cost at&t $1 billion. they're going to have to take that out of their bottom line. it's going to cost the john deere company $150 million, caterpillar, $100 million, three

he minnesota mining manufacturing, $9 million, very larow energy, $20 million. all of these companies are going to have to pay for that and they're either going to have to take it out of their profits or they're going to have to take it out of the hydes of their -- hides of their employees by letting some of them go or they're going to have to send some of their operations offshore. as long as we have more government and more government programs it's going to cost jobs. because somebody has to pay for those. the money doesn't come out of the sky. and so if an employer gets a regulation that costs him money, if an employer is taxed and it's going to cost him money, then he has to find some place to get that money in order to have a bottom line profit. unless you believe the government should run everything and we should have socialism in this country or socialized economy. some people think that's where

we're head and i think that's very unfortunate. but let's just take a look at some of the things that the administration has done since they've taken office that has been a burden to small business and has cost us jobs. ins lentdy, i'd just like to say that -- incidentally, i'd just like to say that all the programs the obama administration had was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% and it's still around 9.5% or 10% and no indication it's going to go down. the economic stabilization act which was last year and part of it was this year and part of it was last year, in 2008, so we can't blame all of that on obama. but the tarp bailout was $700 billion. and then in january we had $73.3 billion in the state children's health insurance reauthorization. a worthy program, but it cost a lot of money. the stimulus bill was $1.16 trillion when you add in the interest. money we don't have. in february we had the omnibus spending bill which was $625

billion when you add in interest. in june, $105.9 billion in the supplemental. in december, we -- in december we had, let's see, last year in december we had the son col dated appropriations -- consolidated appropriations mini omnibus bill, no, that wasn't december, that's the wrong date, but we had an omnibus spending bill of $3.55 trillion. again, money we don't have. and then in march of this year we had the health care bill which is estimated to cost, if you talk about 10 years of taxes and 10 years of coverage, about $3 trillion. you load all this on the back of small business and there's no way they can continue to keep everybody employed. you're going to tax them. mr. waxman, the chairman of the commerce committee, is bringing into the -- bringing before his committee the chairman or c.e.o.'s of at&t, the deare company, caterpillar, because he

says they really shouldn't be telling people these things because these aren't accurate figures. well, they are accurate figures. the $1 billion it's going to cost at&t, the $150 million it's going to cost john deere, the $100 million it's going to cost caterpillar and on and on and on. they have to report that by law. because they reported it, mr. waxman wants them to come before the committee he to try to make them look like they're blowing these figures up. the fact of the matter is business and industry in this country is suffering and because of that we're going to see more unemployment. now, you add to that that by the end of this year the tax cuts that were put in by the previous administration are going to expire and the president has said he's going to let them expire which means those tax cuts are not going to be there so that will in effect be a tax increase. and then you add to that that mr. volcker, as i said into my previous one-minute, is talking about a value and a tax of about 50% to 20%. that's going to be -- 15% to 20%.

that's going to be a terrible thing for the economy and jobs. i'd like to say to my colleagues, if you want to create jobs, cut taxes and cut spending. that's the answer. and cut government regulation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, on april 20, 2004, i rose in this chamber to say that we needed a new approach to national security. to say for the very first time, before any other member of congress was brave enough to say it, that it was time to bring our troops home from iraq. i have a continued -- i have continued to speak out almost every night that the house is in session. but i never imagined that almost six years later i would be here

to talk about iraq and about afghanistan for the 350th time. but that's what i'm doing today. and it's because our service men and women are still in harm's way in both iraq and afghanistan, a -- missions that violate core american values and undermine american security. we have come a long way that opposes these military conflicts, but still our leaders stubbornly claim to a disastrous policy. what we're doing in iraq and afghanistan is disgraceful. it is a stain on our nation. it will someday be remembered as a shameful episode in american history. seven years ago, mr. speaker -- in fact it was seven years ago this week baghdad fell.

remember? that was the moment when iraqis were supposed to throw flowers and weep with gratitude that we have invaded their country. but how did iraqis recognize the sixth anniversary of their so-called liberation? with massive colorful protests against the continued presence of american troops. protests that brought shiia and sunni together, protests organized around the very idea that national unity against the u.s. occupation is stronger than iraqi sectarian divide that are centuries old. protests that included the trampling of american flags, protests in one case that featured the burning of president obama and vice president biden. meanwhile, one of the big developments out of afghanistan this week is the death of several civilian bus passengers

at the hands of american gunfire near kandahar. this tragedy comes at the vow moment and in the very region where u.s. -- very moment and in the very region where the u.s. is about to have a major initiative. it will require strong support from the civilian population in kandahar. but instead this incident has people taking to the streets shouting "death to america," and "death to infidels." seven years in iraq, 8 1/2 years in afghanistan and we still haven't figured out that we can't win people's affection, loyalty and trust by waging war on their country. to truly capture their hearts and minds and also to defeat terrorism and make america safer, we need a smart security approach. that means empowering iraqis and afghans with civilian support and humanitarian aid, with programs to alleviate

poverty, build schools, promote public health and so very much more. the current approach is alienating the population we are trying to win over and embolding the very insurgenting we're trying to destroy. how much -- insurgents we're trying to destroy. how much will this go on? we have teenagers who don't have any memory of their country not at war. we have lost nearly 5,500 people to these conflicts. thousands and thousands more have come home wounded, disabled or suffering from the devastating effects of posttraumatic stress syndrome. and as we all prepare to pay our taxes tomorrow, let's remember that every american is making a financial sacrifice for this folly. in just the time it has taken me to give this speech we've racked up about $1 million in costs over the wars -- for the

wars in iraq and afghanistan. as long as this tragic and unnecessary war continues in both of these areas, i will continue to come to the floor of the house to state my firm opposition. i will not stop until our troops are brought safely home. i suppose i'll be giving my 351st speech tomorrow, and i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: if there is no objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: in these final hours of this season of taxes, our tax system is deeply flawed and in need of significant reform. american workers are asked to work for three full months to

fill their yearly state, local and federal tax obligations. it will force a quarter of their income to prop up expanding bureaucracy and increasing federal employment is just wrong. we are taught at a young age to work hard and that we will reap the benefits of hard work. americans have witnessed that government is claiming more and more of those hard-earned benefits from the fruits of our labors. instead of searching for a way to provide relief for some american households, some in the administration have proposed new taxes that will further burden small businesses and consumers. the european style added tax would levy a tax at each stage of manufacturing, thereby increasing the cost of the finished product. this is damaging not only to the consumer but also to many industries involved in manufacturing production. i'm a member of the anti-fat caucus. i recognize the dangers of imposing this new tax upon the american economy, and i've

joined over a dozen of my colleagues in working to educate members of congress on the problems posed by establishing a whole new series of taxes. instead of adding new taxes, congress should be focused on reforming the current tax structure. i called upon the new chairman of the house ways and means committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, to schedule hearings on tax code simplification. the fair tax proposal is one of those ideas that i've asked his committee to consider. the fair tax can start the conversation on tax reform, and i encourage my colleagues who are serious about having this discussion to join me in contacting the chairman. people across the country are demanding that congress listen to their concerns and find a more equitable and less burdensome way of paying taxes. i share their frustration and have called upon my colleagues in congress to put the politics aside and provide tax relief and reform for this country. americans have made it known that they are in need of serious tax reform. through increased spending and

budget deficits, congress has awaken and american majority that is dedicated to government reform. members of congress have an obligation to be responsive to our people's needs. as the american people gather this week to make their voices heard, congress must listen. these gatherings are occurring all over our country and here on capitol hill. in my home state of kansas, these engaged citizens will be meeting in mound city this evening, salina and wichita tomorrow, and in ottawa and impouria will have meetings on saturday. while these gatherings are occurring, millions of other americans unable to attend will join in spirit to protest the expansion of government in our daily lives. as we approach the end of tax season congress must remember the sacrifices made by each american household. while this is the end of tax season, the rest of the year should be deemed the season of tax reform. the american people need relief and congress should respond. jobs today and the health of

the u.s. economy tomorrow demand our action. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: ms. berkley from nevada. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> i ask make to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: if there is no objection, the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. sutton: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and service of cleveland heights police officer thomas paton ii. on march 13, officer paton was on patrol when he began chasing down a suspect. tragically, he collapsed during the chase and died shortly after the incident. he was only 30 years old. officer paton was the only son of my friend and our community leader, ohio state senator tom paton, and his late wife, evelyn. he leaves behind a loving fiancee trisha and beautiful

8-month-old daughter evelyn. he meant the world to his family and was nicknamed precious by his five sisters. it was without question what career path thomas would take. he came from a family with a strong tradition of police officers that began with his grandfather who joined the cleveland police department in 1946. as a child, he would dress up in old police uniforms and dream of what it might be like to be a patrolman. thomas grew up in strongsville, ohio, in the heart of the 13th congressional district, and he attended holy name school. he saw the dedication and commitment that his grandfather and uncle made as police officers and decided to take that step for himself. he knew the challenges and risks and he fully embraced the spirit of the job. he loved the excitement of working nights. he loves serving others and he died doing what he loved.

he died serving and protecting the rest of us. officers from nearby communities gathered outside his hospital the night he died and many more at his memorial service. the sea of blue uniforms was a testament to the fraternal brotherhood of police that he embraced. his spirit and dedication to his community will be sorely missed, but his service and sacrifice will never be forgotten. he will live on as a hero to his family, to ohio and to the nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. foxx, north carolina. mr. heinrich, new mexico. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: if there is no objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, our brave men and women in uniform sacrifice so much for our nation, and it is our duty to keep our promise

that they have the benefits that they deserve and have earned through their service. i know that many are familiar with the sentiment that a veteran, whether active duty, retired national guard, reserve is someone who at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check made payable to the united states of america for an amount up to and including their life. we all know that the families of our men and women in uniform share the burden of this service to our nation. to ease this burden, i introduced h.r. 4923, the tricare dependent coverage extension act. h.r. 4923 would ensure that our nation's troops and military retirees are able to provide health coverage to their dependent children up to the age of 26. this is one of the most popular provisions in the patient protection and affordable care act, the health insurance overhaul that congress passed and that president obama signed

into law last month. however, health insurance for our our military service members, retirees and their families is under the control of the u.s. department of defense. so this benefit for dependent children was not extended to military families. congress trear to some misinformation we've heard -- contrary to some misinformation we've heard, tricare was not changed by the patient affordable care act. h.r. 4923 would now provide dependent children of military families with the same benefits given to civilian children. specifically, this bill would amend title 10 to change the maximum age of coverage for children from 23 to 26, and it would take effect october 1 of this year. currently in order for dependent children to remain in the tricare system they need to be attending college full time

and only up to the age of 23. however, the new policy in h.r. 4923 would allow all can he pendent children to be covered until -- dependent children to be covered until age 26 whether or not they are full-time students. i say this is supported by the military officers association of america, the national guard association of the united states and the air force association. madam speaker -- mr. speaker, allowing parents to provide health coverage to their dependent children is just one way we can show our military families how much we appreciate them. with each individual who generously dead indicates their life to military service, there is a significant impact on those closest to them. we know this is especially well in new mexico where we have allowed -- a long and proud tradition of military service. each time a soldier leaves

home, they leave behind caring husbands and wives, loving sons and daughters, worried parents and whole communities that remain concerned for their safety. our military families stand behind our troops and lift them up, they make significant sacrifices just like our service members do. let's honor their service to our nation by ensuring that their health coverage meets the same standard that we have set for the rest of america and nothing less. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this important legislation, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. thompson of pennsylvania. mr. defazio of oregon. the gentleman from washington. mr. sestak of pennsylvania. mr. larsen of washington. mr. taylor of mississippi.

ms. sanchez of california. mr. langevin of rhode island. mr. mcmahon of new york. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address this body for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: if there is no objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues, i rise this afternoon to speak to a very alarming and disconcerting issue that continues to grow unchecked around the world, and that is the debilitating and negative effects that the islamic republic of iran is having around the world. mr. speaker, as we all know, we are all concerned about peace in the middle east and we know it's it's very important that our -- we know that it's very important that our great friend and ally in israel continue in negotiations with the palestinians to come to a solution of the issues that exist there. however, mr. speaker, i believe that we cannot expect that

success to come there unless we look at the role that iran is playing on that issue and so many other dangerous issues around the world. it has been acting in a way that is against the interests of our great ally israel or allies around the world and our nation as well. mr. speaker, indeed the palestinian negotiations and iran are very much linked. but not in the way that those who want to pressure israel would argue. the connection between these two critical foreign policy issues stems from iran's perceived veto power over the ability of israelis and palestinians to come to terms. acting as iran's proxies, hezbollah and hamas are used to destabilize the region by engaging in hostile military activities or significant acts of terror at the will of the islamic republic. furthermore, an environment conducive to peace is disrupted by the increased weaponization

of the region. already huge number of rockets have been illegally shipped to hezbollah by iran in violation of security council resolution 1701. likewise, arms and ammunition have been smuggled into gaza and hamas to similar roots. thus -- to similar routes. thus, those who want peace, iran must be brought under control. but it isn't just in the palestinian authority where iran is making trouble. iran is training and funding active hostiles through the united states and afghanistan and iraq and also providing lethal munitions such as materials used in the i.e.d.'s to kill and maim our troops and a-- allies. examples of civil unrest throughout iraq, northeastern saudi arabia and even bosnia have also been tied to the force which conducts overseas operations for iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps. and we must not ignore serious partnership with iran either.

syria is the client of iran and together with hezbollah and iranian-controlled entity and neighboring lebanon, lebanese christians and moderate muslims fear raising their voices against the syrian hedge mondayy over lebanon, reversing the gains made in the revolution that resulted in the end of syrian occupation of lebanon. unfortunately iran's tentacles extend across continents and into our western hemisphere as well. iran has entered into strategic alliance with venezuela, opening the path to hugo chavez to further his antiu.s. activities in south america. and even more concerning, venezuela is helping iran circumvent the security council's economic sanctions and is also suspected of providing tehran with uranium. finally, a smaller arab state in the gulf witness the rise in iranian power, a power that will be confirmed once it reaches the nuclear threshold, they, too, will follow this path and attempt to forge an alliance with this new regional

superpower. for this reason, mr. speaker, it is crucial that congress move swiftly with the administration towards curtailing iran's nuclear ambitions. decades of inaction have allowed iran's influence to sweep across the globe. we cannot allow iran to move further as its influence creeps through our own hemisphere. back in the 1930's, as the power of nazi germany grew, people like winston churchill sounded the alarm, but all too often that alarm was ignored. the alarm is being sounded here in this chamber and it's being sounded across the world. we must act to stop the insidious influence of iran around the world and we must do it on every front. the time is -- to act is now. and the way to act, as i urge my colleagues, that we move swiftly to complete the passage of the iran refined petroleum sanctions act and the iran human rights violations sanctions act which

we must bring to conference committee and send to the president for signature. mr. speaker, i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. we are about to start on -- a journey on an interesting topic of discussion and one that has hit the papers.

and one that could very much affect the shaping of how the world develops and the safety of the world and that is the new discussion on the nuclear posture review, that's a report that the federal government has just released, along with the new start treaty which the president has been working on negotiating with the russians. and these are talking about the future of our country, the future of our world, particularly as it relates to nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. and the initial kinds of read on what's going on sound pretty good. we want to try to reduce the amount of proliferation of nuclear materials to make the world a safer place. we want to talk about a day when the world -- when there won't be any nuclear weapons in the world. we want to try to in general

reduce the amount of threat and risk to our own nation and to other nations. and it all sounds pretty good when you first look at it. until you start to take a look at the troubling assumptions that have been built into these two documents. first of all, they call a nuclear posture review the n.p.r., and the start treaty of course is going back to the 1991 start treaty. and so i'm joined here on the floor by some good friends of mine, some people who are good thinkers, but i think i will mention just a few of the topics that i'd like to see us be talking about here in the next number of minutes. and i think we need to take a look at assumptions. many times people have good intentions but the assumptions that are built in are not so good. there was once a guy who was a pharmacist and he had good

intentions but unfortunately he prescribed too much of a particular chemical and killed his patient. he had good intentions but the result was the death of the patient. that could easily happen to many americans with the false assumptions that are built into the start negotiations and this nuclear posture review. the first thing i'd like to take a look at is going to be the world without nukes. and is that a reasonable assumption? is that something that we should be working toward? and exactly how are we going to produce this world where there are no longer nuclear weapons? the next assumption is whether or not it's reasonable to trust russia when you negotiate arms treaties. the third question would be the overall whether or not we're going to be advancing missile defense and whether or not we're going to develop a missile

defense. it is that -- and is that connected to the idea of the start treaty? the fourth point would be, does it make sense that we're not going to develop any future nuclear kinds of weapons or devices? and, lastly, to define when we might or might not use a nuclear weapon. these are all kinds of assumptions built into these documents. i think they need to be discussed and discussed very carefully by those of us who were dealing with our nuclear posture. and i'm going to start off by recognizing my good friend, rob bishop from utah, who -- would you prefer -- i don't mind going to congressman turner also is joining us, mike turner from ohio. and i know that they have their own perspectives on this. and are very well qualified in certain areas here and i also

have some charts we can go to in a few minutes buzz but i'd like to go to some of those assumptions because the deve sill frequently in the details. i would yield time to my good friend, congressman turner from ohio. the great state of ohio. what part of ohio are you from now? mr. turner: i'm from dayton, ohio. mr. akin: a good industrial area, too. good for you. thank you, mike. please. mr. turner: i appreciate your leadership. and as many people know, we served in the armed services committee together. these are issues that we take up frequently and we held a hearing today on the issue of the nuclear posture review. and on the start treaty. there are a number of things as you outlined that i think people should be very concerned about. one of course is to do what they're referring to as the negative assurances where in the nuclear posture review they've included a statement where the president has taken off the table the prospects of using nuclear weapons in defense of this nation and circumstances

where we are attacked by a nation that is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty. and even if that attack is with either chemical or biological weapons, before we'd always had the posture of, you know, we'll do whatever it takes, whatever's necessary to defend this nation. and the president himself last may said, he clearly stated, i -- this is a quote, i don't take options off the table when it comes to u.s. security, period. unfortunately this administration's nuclear posture review does just that. it delivers a muddled message to both our allies and adversaries that only seeks to weaken the strength of our deterrent. it's unclear as to why thed a has done this if you look at the issue of threat. the threat has not been reduced to the united states. so to take a posture where you're going to restrict what we would use in order to defend ourselves is not based upon some

change that has occurred in the threats that the united states are facing. they have said that they are pursuing this policy of restricting our use of our own defensive weapons in order to encourage others not to seek nuclear weapons. but there's no historical basis for that. the united states has continued to reduce its overall number of nuclear weapons as has russia. while we've seen iran and north korea continue to march -- iran seeking to be a nuclear power, north korea becoming a nuclear power, without any historical basis for an assumption that others would not seek nuclear weapons if the united states agrees to not use theirs, this administration has proceeded down this path. i think -- mr. akin: could i just interrupt for a second? i think what you brought up is kind of an interesting point. the president said, all the options are on the table and here we go again seeing him say one thing and then do the exact opposite. i wonder -- it makes you a

little confused. it reminds me of a question. i'm a pretty old geezer. i've been around here for a while and i remember the ronald reagan days. and i remember people used to ask him, it was kind of the height of the cold war, and people would ask him and say, now, president reagan, what would happen if this and this and this? and he'd kind of look at people with his big old grin and he'd say, you know, i've told you before, i don't answer what if questions. now he said that in a nice way, but his point was, why do we want to answer what if and then lock ourselves into some particular means of responding when it isn't really appropriate when the actual day arrives? mr. turner: that's what this policy is. it is a what if. i mean, the president -- mr. akin: asking a lot of what if questions and why do we have to do that? mr. turner: the administration is saying, if this country is attacked by someone who is in compliance with the n.p.t., even

if we're attacked with biological or chemical weapons, that they would not use everything that we have in our arsenal that might be necessary in order to protect ourselves. mr. akin: so, let's do a what if. that's apparently what this thing -- this treaty is trying to define these what ifs. so some country has made the signed agreements that they're not going to develop biological weapons, they do that on the sly. hit our cities with biological weapons and people are dying with some strange kinds of viruses or something running around. and we're losing a whole lot of population and of course we've taken, i think we have a pledge that we're not developing biological weapons. so we can't responds with biological weapons somewhere, even though that may not be appropriate. so what are we supposed to do then? we've already guaranteed them that we're not going to use nuclear weapons. mr. turner: here's the most important thing. as you invoked ronald reagan and

you were saying you shouldn't answer hypothetical. here's what the blanket statement should be. the blanket statement should be, when it comes to defending the united states against a devastating attack, our message should be clear and simple, if our nation is attacked, we will use all means necessary to defend ourselves. period. there shouldn't be an issue of whether they signed a -- whether they agreed that they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons so we're not going to use nuclear weapons. first off, nobody -- there's no advocacy group saying we need to use nuclear weapons. from a human value statement, the president's statement of a war without -- world without nuclear weapons is something everyone would want to achieve. it's the reality though of the issue of defending our nation and here this president has said, i won't take anything off the table, i will always do what's necessary to defend the united states, period, that was last may, and then now with the administration's nuclear posture review he's saying, but, i'm

going to in advance tell you that if you are in compliance with the n.p.t., if you attack this nation, if you attack the united states, even if you attack the united states with chemical or biological weapons, i'm going to take off the table the nuclear weapons that are in my arsenal, even if it's necessary to protect the united states. the administration goes on to say, we have overwhelming conventional force, that will make up the difference, we aren't making a difference. they're saying they're doing this to encourage other nations to stop seeking nuclear weapons. there's no evidence that works. but the question is what's the message to the other nations? they don't have overwhelming conventional force, developing nuclear weapons is an equalizer

they can look to. i think it's disingenuous to say we're not going to use our nuclear weapons. we might change our mind, but at the same time, we want you not to use them, it's in that framework of the hypothetical of saying that this country if it's attacked, won't defend itself to the full extent when it might be necessary. >> it seems to me we got a couple of different issues here you brought up. the first question is, does it even make sense for us to do the what if question? if somebody does this, this, and this, we're not going to do that. what does that buy us? is that really helpful? particularly when things are nuanced the way they're phrased, it adds haze and uncertainty. certainly answering the what if question doesn't make us a more secure country.

>> the administration is calling this an assurance policy. usually, i think, ei think the american people think, of the word assurance something you give your friends and allies. and in this instance, this is an assurance that the administration is giving, to a nation that would be an attacker to our nation, someone attacking us. that's not even -- that's not the sort of assurance i would think of assurance. mr. akin: the second thing was the idea that somehow we're going to move toward a world without nukes and the way we'll do it is to reduce not only our number of nuclear weapons but reduce our development or deployment of nuclear weapons. so i'd like to just -- i mean, it sounds so good on the surface. let's take this apart a little bit. let's say, you've got america, we have a bunch of nuclear weapons, we say, this is such a great idea, we're going to get rid of our nukes, not develop

any, or we're going to get rid of a certain percentage of them and not develop any new ones which is what the treaty is supposed to do. my question is, how is this going to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world? first of all, think about -- there are 35 or more nations that depend on us to create this nuclear umbrella of protection. so they're not developing their own nukes, because they know that the u.s. is going to protect them. what are they going to do, logically if that umbrella of protection of the u.s. having this overwhelming nuclear force if we take that down, you're one of those 35 nations, what are you going to be thinking? mr. turner: those nations who depend upon us, who have not developed nuclear weapon, who believe they're part of our nuclear umbrella, who believe we extend, in cooperative understanding, our deterrent for their benefit if that

deterrence is removed, then of course there is the prospect that these additional nations will feel the need to develop their own weapons. mr. akin: we're reducing weapons, other nations want to increase that doesn't compute with the logic of these things. let's go to third world nations. maybe some of them that are more likely to be our opponents, ad ver says or troublemakers. we tell them, we're going to reduce our number of nukes an our development of new things. what is their logical response to that? well, let's see, they say, we could never whip them in conventional forces, we've got to find some other way. mr. turner: exactly. mr. akin: so what are they going to do mr. turner: and i think it's a false accomplishment. when the administration promotes this statement of a war without nuclear weapons, again it's a human values statement that i think everyone would wish to be true. in translating it then to a

to-do list or a policy from the united states, going from a human values statement to a to-do list and policy, without a change that has occurred in the world dynamics, that's where we get dangerous for the united states. here's the false accomplishment. this president will talk about his accomplishment of limiting the role and number of u.s. nuclear weapons. i think what people are interested in is this president limiting the nuclear weapons risk we're facing as a nation. in the -- mr. akin: shouldn't the focus be on u.s. security? shouldn't that be the question? are we going the wrong way? mr. turner: we have to see what comes out of the conference the president has held he was identifying the increased threat we have for nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and those are correct issues for him to be raising at this point we wish

him great success in accomplishing some visible reduction of threat to the united states, besides the visible reduction in the role and number of u.s. deterrents. mr. akin: so the bottom line should be about u.s. security. that's what we should be focused on. yet how does it get us more security if we reduce our nuclear capabilities and other nations then become encouraged to increase theirs? mr. turner: absolutely. mr. akin: there's a fundamental disconnect in the lodger here, somewhere. it's all for glorious and super ends and it's supposed to be a good deal but how does it specifically help us? how does it increase u.s. security? that is not clear at all. the idea of us reducing capabilities seems to be completely counterproductive. because it's going to encourage either third world adversaries to take advantage of our vulnerability we created

voluntarily on ourselves, self-inflicted wounds, or for the people who are our friends, are going to develop additional nuclear capabilities to protect themselves. i don't see how this thing works. mr. turner: you mentioned start and missile defense. one issue people are concerned about that relates directly to this issue is any limitation on the united states' ability to defend itself in deploying what is provable, workable technology and missile defense. and the start treaty has in its preamble a recognition between the united states and russia of the correlation between defensive and strategic weapons. the russians have stepped forward and said that this language, they believe, was essential in order to get their approval for start because they want the united states missile defense system to be counted against the issue of our nuclear deterrent. their nuclear deterrent.

they have gone as far as to say they might withdraw from start depending on the extent to which we deploy a missile defense system. what's concerning is the administration, at the same time they are agreeing to and pursuing the start, which has been signed, with language that ties missile defense and -- to our nuclear deterrent, the administration is pursuing for europe a missile defense system. now it's unclear whether the president's own plan far missile defense system already violates the russians' concern for -- under start. we may be in a situation where the president is pursuing a policy that will already cause the relationship with russian and start to be a terminal relationship. in the hearing today, i asked sec retear -- secretary tauscher, where are we the russians on this issue. the administration knows what they want to do with missile

defense. it's knowable by the russians, they say they'll withdraw from missile defense is pursue. my concern is the administration will support start, be pursuing a missile defense system that russia objects to and it might weaken this administration's resolve for this deployment system. mr. akin: the history of missile defense goes back to the days of ronald reagan who proposed the idea of missile defense and liberals made fun of it. they said it's star wars, it'll never work, it'll destabilize relations between nuclear armed cubtries like us and the soveed union. ronald reagan said, no, i don't think so. we have a responsibility to defend our citizens and need to build missile defense. of course, all they through the time of reagan to 2001, we had not done it. president bush went to the russians and the europeans and

said, sorry guys, here's your six months' notice, we're going to start developing missile defense. of course the democrats have been opposed to it. but they were in the minority and we passed it when we were on the armed services committee to do missile defense. it wasn't missile defense against china or russia but against these rogue nations like iran and north korea. so we built it in spite of the fact people said you couldn't do it we did it. test after test we did it and we made it work. we built missile defense. then they made a treaty with poland and the czech republic, saying we're going to deploy missile defense not just in alaska but in poland and the czech republic, thank you very much, congressman turner from ohio, and i really appreciate your leadership on the whole area of national security. you've done a great job and we're joined also by my good friend rob bishop from utah. let's get on this missile defense a little bit. we built it and we built a

number of missile defense silos in alaska, it was called the a ground-based system. it takes -- it shoots a missile that's tremendously large, about 20-something tons of missile, it goes very high, very fast. it has the capability of stopping intercontinental ballistic missiles. many of the trajectories of those go past alaska where those missiles can do a good job of stopping missiles. these were going to be put into poland and the obama administration decided to cut the ground out from behind our allies. they took a lot of heat from their citizenry, got permission, got the support of their citizens to build these systems to protect western europe, particularly from iranian ballistic missiles and the administration decides on very little notice, literally on the day where the polish

were observing the time that the russians had come into poland and just cut the ground out and said, we're not going to do that. what are they going to replace them with? they said, we're going to use a missile defense system based on missile destroyers. only thing is it's binesd a missile that hasn't been developed yet, it's a two-ton as opposed to a 20-ton missile. it's a missile we don't have. and so now we're supposed to have these destroyers floating around the mediterranean, providing missile defense for europe in these destroyers don't have the right kind of missile on them to stop ballistic or intercontinental ballistic missile. the bigger the missile, the bigger the anti-missile you have to have to fight it. here you have north korea, they fire these different missiles, current range is 3,000 to 6,000 miles that puts alaska in the sites and other potential

targets from north korea. likewise, we have iran potentially launching, you can see these different distances depending on how much power the iranian missile has, how many stages and how it can go. starts to move into targeting western europe. this is what we were protecting against with the missile sites in the czech republic and poland which this administration has canceled. they've also canceled a number of other aspects of missile defense which we'll get into, one that was tremendously successfully tested in the last few months. it's this aircraft here with this funny looking nose, looks like a cyclops. this is a very powerful, actually three lasers in one and that was tested successfully to knock down missiles and of course to shoot a laser at a missile, isn't that expensive? and you can get a lot of shots out of a laser and it goes very

fast. it's a very effective way to stop missiles on the launch pad. that's another thing this administration decided that they were not going to fund and these treaties are talking about continuing that trend to reduce our investment in missile defense and that is very troubling indeed. my good friend congressman bishop from utah knows quite a bit about the specific missiles that do this. i'd like to call on your expertise to help us with the subject, please. .eciate my good friend from missouri bringing this issue up again and especially since we are talking about missiles. the united states never was involved in a war because we were ever too strong, the answer is no. sometimes, as i was an old school teacher, when we are young and naive we tend to

overlook details and those details could be devastating. napoleon lost the battle of waterloo not because he was outmaneuvered but because they didn't look at a detail arbitration bag of nails. you would dismantle the artillery by firing a nail through the firing mechanism so it would be useless. they didn't bring any nails with them. consequently the british recaptured that artillery and wrecked havoc on his forces and every book on what would have happened, always has a chapter, what would have happened if they brought the bag of nails. mr. akin: i appreciate having a history teacher. it was an important and sort of a tide-turning detail that was not considered. mr. bishop: let me turn that

into the situation we are in right now because i think this administration is missing a lot of bags of nails that are out there. one in particular deals with our missile program in the future. if, indeed, the direction is not the right direction, we want to change that. we were here last year a long time talking about missile defense systems because last year, we cut the potential of a mobile missile defense system, k.e.i. and stopped the ground-based missile defense system we had and we were complaining that was an inop or tune time. one of the nails that is missing is what happens if we don't look at the unintended consequences of our action. and i'm going to say how this thing turns together and i think sometimes this administration doesn't realize how government relates. last year when we stopped the ground-based the missiles and stopped the k.e.i. among other

things, we put the strile -- industrial base into disarray. this year, nasa, space exploration, what you think has nothing to do with defense? but it is trying to take this aries rocket one of our best innovations of last year and want to cancel the production. now, that ties together as a bag of nails simply because the people who work in the companies that produce this rocket also produce the missile. so the rockets that are built to send the guy to the moon are the same -- are built by the same kinds of people who build rockets to stop a rogue missile from coming into this country. if we devastate the industrial base, we don't have the capacity to change our projection and fix this problem if, indeed, it takes place. and we increase the cost to the

defense of this country significantly because -- let me give you one example. just the oxidizer that starts the pro pullings in our motors that's because of the cuts last year has gone from $5 to $12 a pound. we use it by the ton. when you cut down the amount you use, the company has to make a profit so they charge more peru knit. so we have gone from $5 to $12. if we stop production, that cost will either double, triple or be even more. it means to produce the same motors we need to just maintain where wer we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions of dollars, without having done anything to improve our status. we will spend more money. we will not have a better product. and if we want to turn around

and change that, we don't have the industrial base yet. if we fire all those people who are making these kinds of rockets, we don't have anything to turn for our own defense system. the department of defense has recognized that. the navy has said that they are fearful that the increased cost for them could be 10% to 20% and don't know where the increase could stand if we go along and cancel our space program. mr. akin: let me just recap what you're saying. if you don't have the industrial base to produce the kinds of missiles that we need for missile defense, the way that that can work is, one, you aren't go to go have the rocket scientist. a rocket scientist is a rocket scientist and you need them around and those people are being currently employed for this solid rocket that is loaded more for space exploration than it is for defense, but it is the same technology.

first of all your industrial base is eroded by the fact that you can't keep the engineers around, so they go do something else. the second thing is because you don't have the production facilities, now the cost of materials goes up. and it goes beyond that, doesn't it, and it's just -- you just don't build one of these things in thin air. you need a building. you have to have the machines that are used to package the fuel and the design of how the pressure is contained and how you control burn rate -- all kinds of things that go into building a rocket, right? mr. bishop: and our icbm's need to stay there until the year 2030. what happens if you do one of those solid rocket motors and pull it out to do the inspection and there is a problem with it, where are the experts that can find out what went wrong. where are the suppliers that are no longer in the market -- i'm talking about nails for the

future of our missile defense system that are being lost because we simply didn't think ahead or this administration didn't think ahead. d.o.d. sent us a report last year that said if you slow down constellation, it will have a significant impact. secretary for acquisitions in the department of defense said this industrial base is not our birthright. if we lose it, we may never get it back. general keller said the same thing, that he is not comfortable with the direction we are going, because the cost overruns that will come to the defense system simply means obviously nasa and department of defense did not talk one with another. the august ine commission report , page 107 said this is a problem. the industrial base situation is a significant problem if you stop the constellation program. you need to work that ahead. nasa did not do that.

they either chose to ignore it or didn't study the report. you have the pictures of what we are going to do with north korean potential missiles that are within striking distance of the united states. by iranian missiles that could be within striking distance in the future and what is even more terrifying if one of those countries and i don't think it would be beyond the realm of possibility would give their device to a rogue player and obviously have them aimed at the united states and we, because we decided not to think through situations and think ahead of what we're doing for either being naive or ideological reasons. we have lost the nails to make sure we continue to defend this particular country. mr. akin: the thing that strikes me about this whole situation is first of all, if you want to

deal with the nuclear proliferation, that's one thing, but to connect it to missile defense seems to be the height of stupidity, just really an irrational decision. and to walk away from the fundamental principle that the job of the federal government, more than anything else, should be the defense of this country, the security of the citizens who pay for that defense. and to give that idea up for the old concept of mutually assured destruction makes no sense whatsoever. we were on the right track to develop missile defense. the people said we couldn't do it were all proven wrong. we don't only hit a missile with a missile you hit a spot on a missile. metal--on-metal collision. not only do we have the technology to do that but what we are talking about doing is

even going beyond that to the airborne laser system, which just this last year, firing its last shots before it was going to be shelfed and called by the democrats a big science experiment. i think that's the term saying we don't think much of it. this aircraft engaged two targets. one was a liquid rocket motor that was launched from considerable miles away, in excess of 100 miles, i believe. and this airplane locked onto the missile with its -- it has two small lasers. the first is just to find where the missile is and putting that first laser on the missile. second laser checks the optics of the atmosphere. the third laser fires a beam and it just destroyed that liquid fuel missile in air.

then it turns around and does the same thing to a solid rocket missile, and yet this is another thing that the administration is scrapping. and the question is, if we're interested in u.s. national security, why in the world do we want to bow down to the russians ? ronald reagan was there and there was a great big idea and there was going to be a treaty and reagan walked away, he said i'm not going to agree to that because i'm going to protect my people with missile defense. and here we are going back in history and now we are going to stop this missile defense. and what you're talking about, congressman, is a part of one of the supplier base that has to be there to do missile defense. why are we going to dismantle that? it just doesn't make sense. mr. bishop: i agree totally with the gentleman from missouri who is such a leader on the armed services committee. and part of the problem --

nuclear power notwithstanding, we are talking about the overall defense of this country and in area after area, we tend to be weakening our position. i agree with the gentleman that we should not have scaled back in our laser technology. i agree definitely last year, we made a mistake when we cut the kinetic energy intercourse program, the mobile rockets aimed to stop missiles coming at us. i agree we made a mistake when we limited the amount of ground-based missiles to go, silos ready to be filled. we simply stopped it, artificially ash temporarily. and that puts us in a weaker situation. i'm concerned about what they are talking about the constellation program, it's not just about the manned space flights but the impact it has on the industrial base that proper hibts us from ever changing

course -- pro hibts us from ever changing course. it is part and parcel in what is a calf leer approach to the defense of this country that time after time after time overlooks the details and how those details react and puts us in a more vulnerable situation. once again, no one will ever attack us because we are too strong. they could attack us because we have failed to bring a bag of nails into battle with us. mr. akin: i appreciate your perspective, gentleman, and the little historic lesson on the bag of nails. sometimes our leadership is getting so grandiose and all we are going to do is provide a world without nuclear weapons. what they should do is invest in a time machine and go back in history if they want a world without nuclear weapons. we could open it up and let people beat us up and nations

are going to proliferate. we need to try to stop them but we aren't going to stop them by being weak and selling our own national security down the river and that's what's going on here. in an effort to apparently be a pacemaker, we are thinking we are going to create peace out of weakness and we have found that that is not a good formula and particularly to betray the security of the american people without looking at the details really does not make sense. now, there's another aspect -- this is one -- you know something about history. but when i recall all of these treaties we made with the former soviet union, when the soviet union collapsed, we got information about what happened on those treaties. what we found out was that the soviet union was cheating like mad on every single one of those

treaties. they said we aren't going to build any biological weapons and they have a biological weapons laboratory going in russia and we are over here, brand new guy in the u.s. congress just a few years ago and interviewing one of the top scientists that worked in the biology biological weapons laboratory and we found out 15, 20 years later, soviet union has got these ballistic missiles loaded with smallpox virus, which they are going to shoot at us and we don't from the foggiest idea that they cheated like mad and have a biological weapons laboratory and pepper us with smallpox, which we have a limited amount of vaccine to protect against us. here wer again learning so much from history that we are going to make another deal with the russians and assume they aren't going to cheat on it. my question is, how do we know they aren't going to cheat and what are we getting out of this

deal? do you remember the history of those treaties, gentleman? . mr. bishop: it still gos back to the basic approach that even if the russians are legitimate in these treaties, and even if they live up to them, we live in a world where it's not necessarily the russians for whom we have to be prepared and even if we make a treaty with the russian the north koreans and iranians are not necessarily -- mr. akin: they're going to play by their own rules anyway. mr. bishop: and they could transport stuff even closer to us, which makes it more deadly for us. we have to make sure when we look at the russians, vis-a-vis the russians, we have to put it in context of, are we able to defend ourselves against all sorts of rogue players out there not just the russians or

chinese. that's why the decisions we made this year, based on the decisions we made last year, puts us in a weaker position to say, yeah, we can defend ourselves against the rogue nations as well. mr. akin: i thought it was in the front page of the paper today, the idea that scud missiles had been given, i think it was -- it was from iran to hezbollah -- mr. bishop: from syria to hezbollah. mr. akin: and that was scud missiles. there's a weapons transfer from a group that's a pretty known terrorist group, what happens -- they're not all part of this deal. even if you could trust russia, which i don't, which we have no historic reason to trust, even if you could, what happens to the other nations when you make these deals? especially that you're not going to develop more missile defense. there's another thing we're not supposed to develop either and i appreciate my good friend

from utah joining us, congressman bishop, really, really dood detail, particularly on that industrial base aspect and thanks for the bag of nails explanation. details -- i do remember there was something about the german tank corps being unstoppable except for there was some problem they didn't have the right type of spare fuel tank or something and it was a big problem, just because they hadn't gotten the right kind of gas can to go along with their tanks. some small detail. i yield. mr. bishop: let's hope as we move forward with this, post-treaty, but also as we look at the overall military budget and especially our missile defense, let's make sure we have not left some detail uncover. i hope that in the future, they're not writing those what would have been books about the united states, because simply we failed to be prepared and failed to look at the details

of our situationism appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue to the floor. it's a significant issue and one this nation should take seriously in looking at how we are dealing in the future, not just with our nuclear posture but also our missile defense posture and indeed, if we're going to have to spend billions of dollars to maintain, that's money that comes out of the combat veterans and the combat ground forces that we have and that also is unacceptable. i appreciate being allowed to participate with you for a short period of time. mr. akin: i appreciate your prosperity -- i appreciate your explanation. we're joined by another good friend, probably one of the foremost authorities on missile defense, mr. trent franks. before we jump into that, i thought i'd just give a couple of points for recap so, to

focus our discussion here this evening, that is, we're talking about two different things that have been going on in the news, the first is, the question of the nuclear posture review or the n.p.r. and that's an overall document released by the u.s. government talking about what we're doing with nuclear kinds of things. it contains a whole see reese of false assumptions and while it sounds good on the surface, the question is how does it work? also the new start treaty which the president has been negotiating with the russians, that's along the same lines as the nuclear posture review. my concerns are pretty much listed in five points and the first point is that somehow we're supposed to create a world without nukes and the way we're going to do that is reduce america's stockpile of nuclear weapons, not develop anything new, and cut back on

missile defense. so we're going to reduce our own national defenses and somehow that is supposed to help make other people do the same thing. my question is, does it really do that? the nations that depend on us say, we can't count on them for a nuclear umbrella, they're likely toin crease, and the third world countries that decide we may want to cause us trouble or blackmail us, they say the u.s. has disengaged, we need to jump in and develop our nukes. so how do we get to this quote, wonderful world without nukes. the second question, how much do you trust russia? and even if you do, how about the other countries? and why do we connect missile defense to think nuclear posture. missile defense is a way to make our country more secure. the fourth point is, why limit further development, and we'll get into that with my good friend from arizona and the

last question is, why are we going to do what ronald reagan said never to do, that is to discuss what ifs. i think if we're attacked by a foreign nation and they do us harm they don't need to know what we're going to do because everything should be on the table if you engage u.s. citizens. this treaty will say, if you do this, we won't do this and this and this. why do we want to spell that out? those are five concerns i want to make sure we discuss today but i want to recognize my good friend from arizona, congressman franks. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i've been trying to follow some of the conversation here and i think that everything you've said has a profound significance and i appreciate it. i know this is a general discussion about missile defense, about our nuclear posture and the concerns we have related to iran. the recent summit here in washington esen hrblely or

ostensibly was about trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. the reality is this ominous intersection of jihaddist terrorism and nuclear proliferation has been rolling toward america and the free world for decades. it's a menace that's almost upon us. i believe it represents the gravest short-term threat to peace and security of the entire human family in the world today. i believe that the islamic republic of iran, due to the jihaddist ideology of its leaders, represents a particularly significant danger to america and her allies. president ahmadinejad was speaking to the whole world when he said quote, i'm going to quote him he said for your part if you would like to have good relations with the iranian nation in the future, recognize the iranian nation's greatness and bow down before the greatness of the iranian nation and surrender. if you don't accept to do this, the iranian nation will later

force you to surrender and bow down. now, you know, that makes me nervous, given the fact that iran has recently begun to enrich uranium to beyond 20% four times the necessary enrichment percentage for peaceful purposes, it puts them about 90% of the way there for being able to have fissile material for nuclear weapons. so i have to say, it's a difficult thing, especially difficult for me in some ways because i stood at that podium there at five year -- five years ago and called upon the country to refer iran to the security council. that's before they had had had almost any -- i think they had -- the guess is they had probably less than 164 centrifuges, now they have 8,000 and 3,000, of course, as my good friend from missouri knows, 3,000 is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that can be used as a platform for

full-scale trill program capable of churning out dozens of nuclear war heads per year. i yield back here but i would say this. what we're really facing with iran is a jihaddist nation with leaders that threaten the whole world, threaten the peace of israel, threat ton wipe them off that's now developing an industrial base to make dozens of nuclear war heads in the future. people say, that's over a year away or two years away or three years away, let's pretend that's correct. i'm not sure that having something that will change the world that dramatically and threaten all of humanity that significantly that it's only two or three years away is cause for celebration. it's especially concerning since throughout history, our timetables have always been wrong. we always thought it would take them longer than it did. i suggest to you that i think this is a profoundly significant issue and i yield back to my friend.

mr. akin: i'd like to pick up on a couple of themes you mentioned. you use the phrase frequently, i don't know if you coined it, but i think of it as something you authored, and i guess you could think of it in terms of planets and astron my, that is when you get a juxtaposition of two things. the first thing you're talking about is the development of nuclear weapons and the second thing is in the hands of a terrorist state. we already have nuclear weapons, we have terrorist states, but we haven't seen the eclipse when those two things come together and you're talking about that being a very destabilizing situation in the world, a situation that threatens the lives of at least thousands, perhaps many millions of people and a nation that has a history of essentially blackmail. and so when you put that kind of combination together that

you're talking about, we're talking about a very significant international kind of crisis that we have to be prepared for. now they also have to be able to deliver that weapons system. that's where another thing you were -- you are really an expert on, ballistic missile defense, is also coming in. there are people who say, you can just put this stuff in a suitcase and smuggle it into town so who cares about ballistic missiles or ballistic missile defense but as you know, the nuclear weapons have to be delivered in some ways, and there are different ways to deliver them. one is to put them way off -- up in the atmosphere and it goes up and -- goes off and takes out your communications. another is to put it over a city where it goes off and kills many more people than if it were sitting on the ground. those are things you have studied and take an look at. all of them are bad medicine. what concerns me particularly is the reckless course of this

administration making these grandiose kind of -- we're going to make the world a safer place idea by disarming and saying, we're not going to be developing missile defense and by saying, we're not going to develop any new use of nuclear things. one thing we have not talked about yet on the floor, you can jump in on this if you'd like, that is, we've got north korea and iran that are pretty good at digging tunnels and they take their capacities and put them way underground and you can drop conventional bombs on them and nothing happens because it's down in the earth that far. the only way to stop that is probably some new type of device called a nuclear earth penetrator where you put a nuclear device a small one, on a bomb that goes way down in the earth and explodes. anything radioactive stays down in the earth but it creates enough concussion that it shakes those tunnels and collapses that infrastructure. that's an example of where we

might want to develop a new nuclear device because of a problem we have, yet we would be -- we wouldn't be able to do that with this negotiation. so are you concerned about that and have you given that some thought? mr. franks: certainly i have. the robust nuclear earth penetrator was something many of us advocated for in the past because we wanted to make sure we could hold assets like the facility at cume in iran, we wanted to be able to hold that at risk so they didn't think they could build nuclear weapons without danger to them. this is a particularly significant situation system of i couldn't agree with you more. you mentioned missile defense. it's not just about being able to -- you're talking about the delivery mechanisms as far as where the bomb goes off, that's an important point, but there's another one. the timing. being able to deliver something realtime. in other words, on demand.

and see, that's what gives them a strategic capability. if they can say, your cities, new york, whatever it might be, is 30 minutes from our icbm capability. it's always aimed at us. if we have nuclear missile defense capability, it's no longer a strategic -- as much of a strategic threat. it devalues that program pretty profoundly and when a country like iran is facing great dangers from the outside world anyway if they become nuclear arms, like israel or others, perhaps that becomes part of their calculus and keeps them from moving forward on the nuclear program in the first place. unfortunately this administration -- and aye got to tell you, this administration canceled our efforts in europe to be able to have the capability to interdict missiles coming from iran, whether it was to protect our forward-deployed troops or protect europe. and certainly if they gain the

icbm capability to protect the united states. it's aton stishing -- astonishing me that we did that. we have no system that could be built in time to go into their calculus in the meantime. while some of the greatest security threats in a generation are coming up on our generation the obama administration is insulting our friends and emboldening our enemy, all the while taxing, borrowing, and spending our economy to a place of such vulnerability that our capacity to respond to these threats in the future will be diminished. . mr. akin: that is a frightening prospect. the thing i fine interesting about this, what we're doing is we are reducing our defense spending. here is a chart that would reduce our national defense

spending. these are numbers released by the obama administration and this is the 45-year average at 5.3%. and what you can see it's being reduced here. the thing that's amazing, this wouldn't be so troubling if it weren't for the fact at what rate we are spending money. bush's worst spending year was 2008 under the pelosi congress here. and that was about $450 billion he spent that we didn't have. that's about 3.2% of gross domestic product. this last year, 2009, instead of being $450 billion, it was $1.4 trillion in spending we didn't have, more than three-times increase over bush's worst spending and that goes up to .9% of g.d.p., which is the highest level since world war ii. we are spending money at an incredible rate and look at

what's happening to defense here. this is a wrong-headed set of priorities and very troubling. i have my good friend from texas, congressman gohmert who is joining us. i know that you have looked at a number of these different issues and questions. please jump in on us and point out your own perspective. mr. gohmert: well, we do have the danger of iran about to go nuclear, at the same time as you all have pointed out, our president canceled what took so long and took such great effort by so many including our friends in poland to establish this missile defense that was going to be built. that got canceled. that was going to help protect us, that was going to help protect our allies. but i just want to read here for some of the comments that have been made. president obama said on november 7, 2008, let me repeat what i stated during the course of the

campaign. iran's development of a nuclear weapon i believe is unacceptable. he said on october 20, 2009, that the bond between the united states and israel, the bond that is much more than a strategic alliance. and you look at what ahmadinejad has said. he said in 2005, quote, god willing with the force of god behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the united states and zionism. and he also said israel was to be wiped off the map. he said like it or not, israel will be destroyed. he said the time of the fall of the satanic power of the united states has come and the countdown has started. it has started. and we are disarming unilaterally while iran -- we are talking maybe some sanctions, like maybe that will work as it did against iraq. it didn't work because people

cheated. russia and china said we are making a lot of money selling to these folks right now. we aren't sure we are getting on board. and all the while the centrifuges are spinning while we are here talking and we are coming closer to the day when ahmadinejad will be able to try to keep his promise all while we are disarming. it makes no sense. we took an oath to provide for the common defense and it's high time we did that. mr. akin: i thank the gentlemen for joining us. thank you, mr. speaker and look forward to seeing you next wednesday. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, madam, due to my recent appointment to the committee on energy and commerce, i here by announce my

resignation from the committee on agriculture, committee on the budget and the committee on transportation and infrastructure, signed sincerely, robert e. latta, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the resignation is accepted. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 45773, an act to urge the secretary of the treasury to instruct the united states executive directors at the international monetary fund, the world bank, the inter-american development bank and other multilateral development institutions to use the voice, vote and influence of the united states to cancel immediately and completely haiti's debt to such institutions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: under

the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. kaptur is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. kaptur: i thank my colleagues who are joining us this evening, including congressman joe donnelly of indiana. as we begin this special order commemorating the polish nation during its days of deepest mourning and the magnificent people of that country. as we speak here tonight in this hour, in my home district of toledo, ohio, the polish community has gathered for a memorial mass that began at a catholic church at 6:30 p.m. they and we here tonight are united in solidarity with our polish brothers and sisters

halfway around the world. the americans gathered tonight here in congress and in my home community and the nine million americans of polish decent across our nation in places as far flung as chicago, detroit, new york, threado, las vegas and places like pittsburgh and philadelphia and cole and texas, from coast to coast, americans are united in our mourning and in the encouragement that we wish to share with the people of poland in these dark hours. today the house passed unanimously house resolution 1246, originally introduced by congresswoman kathy dahlkemper of erie, pennsylvania, a community with thousands of polish americans. and for that passage, the ambassador from poland sat in

the gallery as each vote ticked off and it passed overwhelmingly with over 400 votes. that was an exceptional emotional moment for me as we as a nation mourn the death and terrible loss of life that the nation of poland is bearing. the resolution expresses its deepest sympathies to the people of poland and the families of those who perished for their profound loss. the resolution expressed strong and continued solidarity with the people of poland and all persons and expressed unwavering support for the polish government as it works toover come the loss of many of its key officials and we know that poland will prevail. it is important to place on the record also that the plane that crashed crashed in the takin

forest in the most morbid of ironies. the doomed plane was flying to russia to commemorate the massacre when 22,000 polish officers, leaders from all walks of life were murdered at the hands of joseph stalin and the soviet army in the forest during world war ii. their bodies buried and the truth hidden for seven decades. that is the truth of their slaughter. that history must be made whole, and i know that on may 5 in a strange twist of fate at the library of congress, with the help of a foundation, there had been planned a special all-day seminar, which will continue on the massacre. i think it will be even more

well attended than was originally anticipated and we thank the library of congress, its director and the foundation from new york for their leadership in this effort. before i turn to my colleagues who are on the floor tonight, let me just read a brief poem called "buttons," and what it talks about is the original massacre and how little is known about it in the outside world and what a responsibility we have to document what happened there. and the poem is breff, but reads as follows. they come from depths upon their surface, a tribute on their graves. they are testing god will count, extend their mercy upon them, but how to raise from the dead from a clammy piece of earth.

a bird flew over, a leaf is dropping, heavens above are filled with silence. the forest smokes with fog. only the buttons did not yield. powerful voice of silenced choirs, powerful voice of silenced choirs, only the buttons did not yield. buttons from coats and uniforms. i would like to yield to the gentleman from indiana, mr.donnelly, who was proudly here today to cast his vote for the resolution, for such time as he may need. mr. donnelly: i thank my good friend from ohio. and mr. speaker, i rise today in remembrance of the 96 people who died so tragically in the plane crash in russia on saturday. to stand here in solidarity with the polish people during their time of immense loss. this is a time of sorrow for

both our nations. and i extend my deepest sympathy to the polish people. the plane crash took the lives of many of poland's leaders traveling to memorialize the 70th anniversary of the massacre, as my good friend from ohio mentioned. during world war ii, the soviets executed approximately 22,000 polish service members, public servants and citizens. sadly that site now claims the blood of more great poles. killed on saturday were president kaczynski, the first governor of poland's central bank, 12 members of parliament, four generals, many other key leaders and great polish citizens, the labor activist whose firing at the gadansk

helped the solidarity strike. and president cazinki was an important friend -- president kaczynski was an important friend of the united states. he moved for democratic reforms in poland, which eventually led to free elections on june 4, 1989. elected president in 2005, president kaczynski was a tireless advocate for stronger ties with the west and expanding nato membership in eastern europe. he strengthened the cooperation between poland and the united states and his loss will be felt both in poland and here in america. mr. speaker, during the time of loss for the polish people, i believe it is especially important that the united states work closely with the people of poland on issues of mutual importance and that we assist

their government in anyway possible. i am honored to have joined the house of representatives today in passing house resolution 1246, which expressed this chamber's sympathy to the people of poland for their loss and pledging continued solidarity with the people of poland and persons of polish descent. let us use this tragedy as an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the friendship between our two nations. as we know, poland and the united states have had a long and important friendship based on solidarity together. in fact, at our nation's very birth, pulaski, the great polish cavalry officer led victories over the british and saved the life of george washington. polish americans have contributed to the rich fabric of our nation, both throughout

our history and today, as vibrant and accomplished americans proud of their heritage and proud of their culture. . to my good friend from ohio, you have so many polish communities in your district, in my district, south bend, michigan city, la port, other wonderful cities in indiana are home to over 10,000 polish americans and many more hoosiers can trace their roots to poland and many more hoosiers throughout my district can trace their roots to poland. poe sland a crucial american ally. the role of sol -- poland is a crucial american ally. the solidarity of poland and pope john paul ii were critical in bringing an end to the cold war. since the fall of the iron curtain, poland has worked closely with the united states,

joining nato in 1999, contributing troops to the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and agreeing to cooperate with us on missile defense. poland has instituted modern democratic and capitalist reforms, opening their country, economy, and their hearts to the world. mr. speaker, let us remember those who perished in this past weekend's tragic disaster and let us honor their lives and their contributions by continuing america's strong and unbreakable friendship with poland for all the years to come. i yield back to my dear friend from ohio. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for his very, very heartfelt remarks this evening and for taking time after such a busy day to pay tribute to the nation of poland and the people of poland and the citizens from his district and for sharing their grief and for offering word of hope and

encouragement for the future. i thank you so much for your participation. mr. donnelly: it is a bond of friendship over many, many years a bond of solidarity that can never be broken. we are both so proud to represent districts where we have so many polish-american citizens who are so proud of their ancestry and who take such great pride in the roots they have. ms. kaptur: as we think about what happened in poland, we also experience during this period now a peaceful transition of government. according to their constitution, as the speaker of their parliament assumed the office of president, and we can see through the magic of television thousands of poles

paying their respects to their lost president and first lady in front of the presidential palace and its all peaceful. in that great liberty-loving land of poland. as the gentleman from indiana has well stated, freedom loving people. who saw their nation wiped off the map of europe for over 100 years and during world war ii, their nation partitioned and then the great struggle they endured beginning with labor strikes in the 1950's in places like posnyn to try to begin to role back -- roll back the iron curtain. we are so honored to be an ally of the great nation of poland. i wanted to yield time to the fine member from arizona, congressman trent franks, lead for the defense issues and so many other issues, for coming to the floor tonight to pay tribute and yield him such time

as he may need. mr. franks: thank you so much. it's hard to add anything to the touching words from indiana and the kind and loving words of the gentlelady from ohio. this is one of those issues where we stand together and transcends any political parties and we just tonight we mourn with poland because they have shown themselves to be some of the most brave and noble people in the history of humanity. i can't express, as with you, how we are all deeply saddened by the tragedy that's befallen them. just this past saturday, of course, it doesn't seem like -- this couldn't have happened that recently, but we were all stunned when the polish air force flight carrying 96 passengers, of course, including polish president-elect kaczynski and his wife marie yarks they went

home together. the polish chiefs of staff and numerous other polish public servants, their lives ended suddenly. it's a reminder to all of us of our own mortality. and also a reminder of us how difficult it is to lose people who have led such a noble country. it's impossible for any of us to stand here and say anything that will make sense of such an unexpected tragedy but as americans continue to stand in solidarity with the polish people and the family and friends of those taken all too soon by saturday's crash, perhaps we'll come away from the horrific event, reminded uniquely of the strong bond both of you spoke of shared by the united states and poland. i'm reminded of the words of g.k. chesterton reflecting on the value of an allife said, quote, there are no words to express the abyss between

isolation and having just one ally. it may be conceded to the mathematicians that four is twice two, but two is not twice one. two is 2,000 times one. unquote. i think in a sense, you know, throughout history when we've had firm knowledge that poland stood with america for the cause of freedom, it always made us feel we were outnumbered, whoever was before us. there can sometimes be a tendency among those of us in public service to focus our attention almost exclusively on the bad things happening around us and all the wrongs that need to be righted. but sometimes in doing so, perhaps we occasionally lose sight of all the good things, the friends we have in the world that share our common commitment to the ideal of freedom for everyone and truly the united states has and has always had that kind of an ally in the nation of poland a friend that's continuously provided strong support to the

united states both diplomatically and militarily and as both of you have said, it's a tragic irony that those on board the polish air flight were on their way to remember another dark day in their nation's history 70 years ago when 20,000 of their precious predecessors, poles, were brutally gilled a communist regime. buzz of those experiences, the people of poland, including president election kaczynski, who from -- president elect kaczynski, -- president lech kaczynski, knew what it was for a brutal regime to suppress the right of liberty and that shared value goes to the heart of what founding fathers in america believed when they established this great nation. so mr. speaker, and gentlelady from ohio and the gentleman from indiana, i just want to stand with you and hope all of us take time to remember this

steadfast alliance between poland and the united states of america. they are our friends and the families of those on board the crash, we know tonight mourn the premature death of their loved ones. but every american stands together with them in saying that the nation of poland and those most directly affected by the tragedy remain deeply in our prayers. god bless poland and god bless both of you. ms. kaptur: congressman franks, i want too thank you, i know what a long day you've had, you ban on -- you began on c-span this morning, but for you to pay tribute, particularly with your responsibilities in the area of defense. i know people of poland are listening and people of polish descent across this country, and they are helped to be healed by your words, by the words of congressman donnelly, today we were all part of that

important moment when the congressman from chicago, congressman lipinski who co-chairs the polish caucus, asked for a moment of silence and the entire chamber, it rose above partisanship, it was just the expression of the american people as the ambassador from poland was in the gallery and we remembered those who had lost their lives and we prayed for the strength of poland today, for the courage of her people to endure, and as we were expressing that respect, i kept thinking my last trip to poland, last august. i've traveled there for many, many decades and when it was under communist control, i remember how the people, how their faces, their eyes, their

expressions were and then in 1989, when the berlin wall came down, traveling to poland and seeing this moment of possibility and the anxious,ness at that particular period and then to try to -- rns,ness at that particular period and then -- anxiousness at that particular period, and then to see their eye the eyes of young people who will be leaders of the 21st century and they had been raised in a free country. for the first time in over a century. and they had the same possibility as the poles who during world war -- right after world war i attempted to build a free country and then it was taken away from them by nazi and soviet aggression. this is really the first generation in 20 years to see the look of hope in those young people's eyes, i shall never

forget it. i told me the world had progressed and poland had progressed and her deepest held dreams lived in these young people. so i wanted to put that on the record tonight and also to mention that many, many members, certainly the speaker, the vice president, secretary of state, members of our house, like congressman quigley, have worked their way to the polish embassy to sign the book of mourning that is at the embassy for interested members and citizens, the polish embassy is overwhelmed with the outpouring of support and friendship of the american people, the street , just north of dupont circle where the embassy is located, the whole entire front is full of flowers and candles. americans were walking by, attempting to gain entry to the embassy to express their sorrow. it was quite a powerful sight to behold. i know there are memorials

being held around the globe as well. president obama has announced he will be leaving -- leading america's delegation to poland this weekend for the president's funeral. so the outpouring of love from the american people to the polish people is a bond that will only be strengthened by this great tragedy and i wanted to also play -- place on the record if i could this evening a poem by andrew, in english, andrew vita a polish filmmaker, about katyn, where the past generation and this generation of poles has now paid the greatest price. and he says, there are no great walls there at katyn, no towers leaning or not leaning. declaring some king's success or mocking another's failure, no gleaming cathedral where you can pray for forgiveness or watch the cycle of shadows play through the coolness of the

day, and soon not even the names of those who died will be remembered, names like scripinski, or anthony mokarik. their harsh voices and tearing courage are lost in the wind, he writes, but their true monuments will always be there in the dust and gray ashes and the mounds settling over the bodies over which no prayers were ever whispered nor tears shed by a grieving mother or trembling sister. this team of polish leaders journeyed to katyn, russia, in order to begin to unravel this story. this story that for seven decades, three quarters of a century, was denied. i have to say that the prime minister of russia, vladimir vladimir putin is to be commended royally for his

attention to what happened and in addition to that, for having the courage to look history in the eye and not be afraid of it and to know that we are living in a new millennium and to allow the film "katyn" to be shown on television in russia before the crash and then after . and so to make history right and the president of russia, mr. medvedev, to be able to move on and to work together with the deep heritage that our people all have together and to use our power to make the world a better place, what a moment for all of us. to be living in an opportunity instead of opportunities that should not be lostment and i'd like to yield back to my friend from indiana. donald donald in listen -- mr. donnelly: in listening to

your comments, what continues as a theme through all of this is the unbreakable spirit of freedom of the polish nation. that despite some of the most harsh treatment from other countries, some of the most difficult challenges ever faced their strength, their courage, their determination changed the face of the world. i'm sure my good friend from ohio remembers that day when the new pope was chosen. many years ago. and out onto the balcony came pope john paul ii. and i remember the announcer saying, this pope is from poland. and when that happened the whole world changed. and it wasn't too long after that that a strike at a ship yard again changed the face of the world. and that the courage of those

workers and the strength of their belief in freedom and the pope's keeping an eye on them, so to speak, helped change the entire world again. where you heard so many times that the iron curtain could never be broken, that the soviet union would never change, that poland was a smaller nation than the soviet union and would never have a chance to see their spirit of democracy bloom and flower. but the determination of the people of that country could not be denied. and their example led to the berlin wall coming down, led to country after country getting their own freedom and their own democracy and it was all started

in a ship yard by the polish nation who believed in a cause that was right, in a cause that was just and believed that we are all creatures of god and god has given us that opportunity to have freedom. and because of that the whole world changed. because of the strength of the people of poland. and so tonight as we stand here in our own capitol of this nation we love so much, we want all of our friends of polish heritage to know and all of our friends who are in poland to know that we stand together with them, that we are as one and that they can always count on our being there whenever needed. ms. kaptur: the gentleman's words are so eloquent and i am

reminded that in the resolution that was passed this afternoon here in the congress one of those who lost her life on that plane was anna who's the former dock worker whose firing in 1980 sparked the solidarity strike that ultimately overthrew the polish communist government and of course she was killed in the crash as well. and last august when i traveled to poland one of the cities we visited, there were many, many moments that were memorable. but i remember standing near the town square and seeing very huge, huge crosses, metal crosses, that had rope bonds around them and underneath it the years 1956 through the late 1950's through the 1960's, through the 1970's, all of the

strikes and protests inside of communist poland that ultimately in 1980 and during the decades of the 1980's then erupted by the courage, the progressive courage decade after decade after decade obviously throughout the loss of their own life, people trying to build a solidarity movement to change life in that part of the world. it's an extraordinary story, the story of great heroism and i think the gentleman reminds us of the price that has been paid by the people of poland for their liberty. mr. donnelly: i think back on all the incredible accomplishments that have occurred because of that desire for freedom. that recognition that each human

being is special. and that god has given us those rights. and that's why lech vast stood up and said enough -- kaczynski said enough. in my own district, one of the central points of the polish community in south bend, and in michigan city, another central point where the community today is as strong and as vibrant as ever. and it has a very heavy heart this week after what has happened, after seeing folks they care so much about be in such a terrible, terrible accident. terrible loss. and their tremendous pride in their american heritage and

their polish heritage has led those communities to be such bright lights in my state and i know in ohio as well. ms. kaptur: you know, congressman donnelly, when we think back to poland's history during world war ii, no nation lost a higher percentage of its people, 20% of the population of poland was eliminated. and the strength that it took to survive that and to endure, history should well note the dismembering of their nation and their ability to prevail and ultimately then in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's and 1980's, they come from a heritage of great suffering and great triumph. mr. donnelly: and to a community where easter is such a special

event and to have this happen so shortly after easter, in rolling prairie, a little town just outside of south bend, where there's also another, where easter is celebrated as something not only very important spiritually but also to the polish community as well, to have this happen so shortly after that may have made the pain even more difficult. but what they -- what the people of poland know is that they have suffered and struggled before and from each time they deal with struggling and suffering they come out stronger and they come out as a nation more united err time. and so from this pain, from this

sorrow will come comfort and the understanding and knowledge of all the friends that the nation of poland has throughout the world. and in that we hope can be -- and that we hope can be of some comfort. ms. kaptur: i thank you for your words and compassion and in a similar vain -- vein wish to put on the record two letters that have been issued related to this tragedy. one is from city ofen visnoski who is the president of the correspondencey siberia foundation. and this particular foundation is trying to virtualy tell the history of the millions of poles who were relocated during world war ii from the eastern half of poland and sent to concentration camps and labor camps in siberia

and point it's east as the red army assumed control of the eastern half of poland. there were lives, hundreds of thousands of -- upon thousand of lives lost. and he writes the following, what has happened is a black day for poland and for her children around the world, including all of us at the correspondencey siberia foundation who are working for the remembrance and recognition of our collective history. those who perished were all leaders in the nation's quest for remembrance and identity. many were close friends of the cressy siberia nation and among those we have lost are two of the honorary patrons of the museum, rasard, the last polish president in compile and janush, ministry for veterans and repressed people. our first important backer who's

president of the polish union association, who had the courage and vision to be the first major sponsor of our virtual museum and whose organization now hosts our office in warsaw. he also says, president of the institute for national remembrance who headed one of our foundations a -- foundation's most important partners, secretary overseeing the council for the protection of memory of struggle and martyrdom, an important friend and collaborator of the cressey siberia foundation and he references the president and his wife who were both aware and very supportive of the foundation's efforts. and then he recognized the scores of leaders of the siberian association, the katyn family association, the galgatha of the east foundation and all

our colleagues and all lost in the flames of the presidential jet crash. the tragic irony of the circumstance is not lost on us. like the cream of the polish murdered 70 years ago and who the presidential party was on route to commemorate at katyn, an entire leadership group of our nation has been lost to us. literally the entire chiefs of staff of the army, air force, navy, have all perished. along with scores of parliamentarians, government officials, religious leaders and historical activists like us. we poles will recover for as a nation we always have. but we have lost a strong core of our most passionate and historically aware patriots. we are in shock and mourning. our thoughts and prayers are with the nation and with the families of those who lost their loved ones. may poland and all her children around the world rally in unity at this tragic blow.

and i would hope that the united states of america would take up the gauntlet and help poland continue the effort to remember, to restore her archival collections, to try to make and honor those who lost their lives under such horrendous circumstances over 70 years ago and that the ground that now is sacred because of additional lives lost as well as those in the past has special meaning in the world today. and that we need to remember and we need to account for every lost life america can help in this cause. and another letter that was sent fromal ex who's president and executive director of a foundation based in new york writes, dear friends, as we mourn the loss of president lech and maria kaczynski and their talented delegation of leaders, we need to make sure these deaths were not in vein.

after a coverup of the -- vain. after a coverup of the katyn massacre, today the truth about katyn was on television and page one news around the world. as the anthem says, poland has not perished while we are alive. president kaczynski and his cabinet presided over a period of prosperity and today poland has the 18th largest economy in the world, a free press where people can speak their minds and a stable democratic system where voters elect their leaders. these are great strides made by our fatherland over the past 20 years and we should all be proud. so wherever you are, go visit a polish consulate, a polish church, a polish club or a polish cultural center and share your condolences, but remember to count your blessings as well. i thought that was a beautiful call to action here in the united states and abroad.

mr. conyers: -- mr. donnelly: i just want to thank my good friend from ohio for letting me be part of this and to the nation of poland, our hearts and our sympathy are with you at this very, very difficult time. ms. kaptur: i thank congressman donnelly for joining us this evening and congressman franks from arizona, congressman donnelly from indiana, congresswoman capture from ohio, to all of our colleagues from across this country and certainly from the polish american caucus here in the congress, congressman lipinski, congressman dingell, congressman chris murphy, congressman mike quigley of chicago, congressman dennis kucinich of cleveland, ohio, congresswoman marcia fudge of the same region, all of us are united in our common grief as well as common hope that the future of poland in this millennium will be very bright and america stands with you at this very historic moment.

we yield back our remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed.

to accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.

watch in its entirety for three consecutive weekends, the first debate sunday at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. this weekend on c-span2's "book tv," live, saturday, from the annapolis book festival, panels on global security and the world's water supply. also, william cohen and barry lynne. on "after words," harry markopolos on his efforts to tell the media and officials about the ponzi scheme. this sunday, pulitzer prize winners. find the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org and follow us on twitter. >> attorney general eric holder today testified before the senate judiciary committee. much of the questions focused on the trials of alleged september 11 plotters,

including khalid chic mohammed. the attorney general said trying them in a new york federal court is not out of the question but the administration was taking into consideration some of the concerns raised about cost and security arrangements that would entail. here's some of the q & a on the subject starting with jeff sessions, the top republican on the judiciary committee. >> with regard to the khalid shekh mohammed decision, you made that decision you declared in this committee directly that it was going to be tried in new york and you defended that as a -- as an appropriate way. it caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. i understand now the white house has suggested it would not be tried in new york and i guess it makes me a bit uneasy, having served in the department, to have politicians

discussing where the cases ought to be tried. that's normally the department of justice and professional prosecutors. what's your position about where these -- where khalid sheikh mohammed trial should take place and are you uneasy that the white house is leaking statements about where a criminal case should be taken for trial? >> i'm not sure there have been leaks. i have said myself that the national security team is in the process of reviewing where the case might best be held. we have to take into consideration in making -- >> who is the national security team? >> the national security team includes the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, people from the intelligence community, the people who meet with the president every tuesday afternoon to review where we stand around the world with regard to our terrorist efforts. this is a trial that is unique in the sense that it does

involve very real national security corns and i think the involvement of the white house and the national -- the national security component of the white house as well as the national security team in tepping -- helping make that determination makes sense. i'm jealous in guarding the prerovetives of the department. >> i think you should be. i was a little -- i would expect normally if it's under reconsideration that the attorney general should announce it's you should reconsideration and not politicians. but there is a venue problem, is it not, if it's the case is try in civilian courts. but if it's tried by military commission, you're not limited in that way. so aren't -- to try in illinois, wouldn't that raise venue issues, for example.

>> you're obviously a former united states attorney, and the question you asked is one i asked. if there were the possibility that ewe moved this trial, what would the possible venues be? i have received from the people who i asked that question a list of places in which the case could be tried. what i will say is the southern district of new york is, for instance, a much larger place than simply manhattan. there's the possibility of trying the case in other venues beyond new york. >> well, i just think that the simple -- simpler and more logical decision would be to reconsider fundamentally and try this case where it should be, i think, in military commissions. isn't it true that protecting of classified information that can be revealed in a criminal trial is a priority of our

government, in other words, we don't want to have a trial develop in such a way that classified information is revealed to the public and on march 20, this year, your department answered questions i submitted to them about the danger of revealing classified information and the relevancey of that to criminal or military commissions. you testified there was not much difference but the march 20 responses from your department really tell a different story, citing, quote, key differences in classified evidence protections and military commissions trials that are not present in federal criminal law. were you aware of these -- this information when you testified before us in november? >> yeah, i don't necessarily agree that there are

fundamental differences between the protections available in civilian courts and those that might be available in military commissions. the military commissions modifications that have been made to the secrecy provisions really codify, i think, what judges do as a -- as a matter of routine in civil court, with one exception that morning has to do with interlocutory appeals which i think is a good idea and should be incorporated into what we do on the civilian side. much of the other enhancements that you see reflect what judges do on the civilian side. >> well, that's not what your responses say. they list seven different examples of how the military commissions are more effective in protecting intelligence sources and methods than a criminal cyle. do you dispute that? >> i think that those seven instances, i'll take your word for it that that's the number, but the instances that are

listed, as i said, reflect the kinds of things that judges do, not because they are obligated to do them by rule or statute but because they do them in the way in which they interpret the cepa statute. s i said, i do think the one modification, enhancement, that exists with regard to military commissions with regard to interlocutory appeal is something we should consider. we should always be looking at the cepa stat to make it more effective. >> i agree with that but i would say to you, mr. holder, that when you try a person in civilian court, you have to give them miranda warning upon taking them into custody. you have to tell them they're entitled to a lawyer, they're entitled to a speedy trial, they're entitled to file discovery of the government's case, all immediately, basically.

and when you try them, hold them in military custody, you don't have to charge them at all because they're a prisoner of war until the war is over but if they violated the laws of war and committed criminal acts, they may be tried, if you choose to try them in military commissions. it just makes perfect sense to me that these cases would be tried there, that's the result of the national consensus after the 9/11 commission issued their report, congress has passed legislation to that effect and the president, one of his first acts was to set aside and stop these commissions and you have blocked their progress since then, it seems to me. so i think you need to re-evaluate this. i don't think the people of new york want this trial anywhere in their state or their city or the southern district. there are many legal questions that will arise, i just hope you'll re-evaluate this. apparently the white house is,

i hope you will, and we will soon have clarity about what the possibility of the department of jusity is. >> the decision i made and the decisions i will make with regard to the placement of any of these trials depends on what is best for the trial. do this on a case bicase basis with regard to the evidence we would seek to commit, concerns about some of the evidence that might be admitted depending on the forum, the impact of the usage of certain intelligence on -- certain evidence on the intelligence community and what it might do for our ability to interact with our allies, there are a whole variety of concepts and things that have to be taken into consideration and what i have tried to do and what we will try to do is make these decisions on a case-by-case basis with the aim of being most effective in a particular trial in protecting the american people. >> thank you, senator sessions.

senator feinstein. >> general, i think your last sentence was very important and i think that the degree to which this dialogue has escalated is really very unhealthy. democrats did not do to president bush following 9/11 what is being done to this administration with respect to the decision making. i really regret it. and i really find it reprehensible. i believe that the best interests of the people of this nation are served by the administration, you, mr. attorney general, and the president, having maximum flexibility as to which venue these defendants should be tried. i've served now on the intelligence committee for some 18 years, on this committee for over 17 years, and i have never seen anything quite like this. the record is ignored. it doesn't matter that the bush

administration brought 200 terrorists to justice under article iii courts. it doesn't matter that the military commissions, which have been fraught with controversy, have are convicted three, two of whom are out. it doesn't matter that zazi pled guilty, that was a real threat, that was a real threat to the city of new york, the f.b.i. did magnificent work, he pled guilty. david head lee is a serious terrorist. he pled guilty. the fact of the matter is that article 3 courts have other charges that they can use if they do not have the evidence to sustain a pure terrorist charge. you should have that option. you should also have the option of the military commission. and i've come to the conclusion that a lot of the attacks are

just to diminish you. i don't think you should buy into that at all. i think you should remain strong. now i've had concern about new york city, i've been a former mayor. i was mayor in the wake of an assassination, a major lie riot, i know what happens inside a city with a lot of scar tissue. and that's hard to perceive unless you've been there, done that, and understand it. so i understand why new yorkers feel the way they do. i also understand why the best interests of our country are served if you remain strong and make the decisions based on the legal facts and where we best get a conviction. and i just want to urge you to remain strong in that respect. the record of the article 3 courts and the conviction of terrorists in this country is unparalleled. and that is absolute fact.

i wanted to ask you a question on indefinite detention, if i might. the immigration and nationality act and the patriot act both allow different types of indefinite detention under narrow circumstances. i think it's important that the executive branch strike the right balance between preserving the rule of law and releasing individuals who we know are determined to harm our nation. and this is a difficult area. i'd like mr. holder to ask your -- i'd like, mr. holder, to ask your opinion -- in what narrow circumstances can the executive branch hold detainees who continue to pose a security threat, but cannot be prosecuted for past crimes? >> well, again, we have to look at these cases individually, we make these determinations on a

case-by-case basis. people who we decide should be held under the laws of war have the right to a habeas proceeding, so a judge has the ability to look at make the determination as to whether or not the detention that we seek is in fact appropriate. we have one -- we have won some cases in that regard, we have not been successful with others. some are under appeal. some of the people who have ordered released by judges have been released. we are -- we use that power, again, with the thought that what we want to do is to keep the american people safe and not release people who would pose a threat to the united states, or not release people who we do not think can be placed in other countries and where remedial measures can be put in place to assure they would not pose a threat to our people. so we use that power only where we think it can be

appropriately used and i think if you look at the number of people who we had at guantanamo, the number of people who we would seek to detain in that way is relatively small. >> thank you. there's a question here i wanted to ask -- i can't find it. about a year ago, we passed legislation with respect to the detention of children that are brought to this country not at their request but similar to the elian gonzalez case. i learned some time ago that we have about 5,000 children who at that time were subject to serious detention in jail facilities, some of them very, very young. we passed a bill a year ago

asking you to do certain things and we've had no response to that. would you take a look at that and see if we can get that show on the road, so to speak? >> i will look at that. the concern that you have is one that i have as well. >> these regulations that have to be implemented, essentially. >> we will look at that. the concern about children and their detention, and what that means for their development, their separation from parents, these are all things that i think are very legitimate concerns. i'll look at these regulations. >> can you give us any kind of timeline? i've waited a year and if you could give us a timeline, a lot of children out there, this has to do with indefinite detention, it has to do with guardianship, it has to do with an ability to return them to the country if there is a place for them. >> what i can do is this. maybe when i get back this

afternoon to the department, i will look to see what the state of play is and then if i can, i will promise to get you a letter by the end of the week to give you a sense of when it is we can start to do something in a substantive way. >> you can see that entire hearing with the attorney general any time at c-span.org or tonight on c-span2 after the senate gavels out. >> this year's c-span studentcam competition asked middle and high school students to create a five to eight-minute video dealing with one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. here's one of the third place winners. >> vote no. vote no.

he has to go. >> partisanship means, to me, identifying with a particular set of creeds or beliefs about how we govern ourselves and live together. >> partisanship is both a challenge and a strength. it's a challenge many times because in my view, people don't understand the strength of partisanship. if you belong to a party, they have a platform. and that platform will pretty well lay out their basic beliefs. it's a good starting point for the voter to know, do you believe in the platform presented by the republican party, for instance, or the democrat party? and then you get to know the candidates and more than likely the candidates will be able to say why they support the platform. so the challenge is, in my view, making people understand that just because you take the party out of it, you don't necessarily help the voter. the party in it does help the voter because it gives them a

starting point as to what the belief system is. >> today we're having the prescription for america rally and the purpose of the rally is to demonstrate that there is widespread support among oklahomans to pass health care reform, including a robust public option. it's really important for us to rally today because quite obviously, our state representatives have no interest in passing health care reform, so we're trying to generate public support for the option and possibly, hopefully, influence our representatives in washington. >> health care for all. even republicans. health care for all. even republicans.

>> i think partisanship is a strength for america. it just has happened in a democracy, we have two parties. and the partisanship keeps the party that's not in power questioning, challenging, the decisions of those that are in power. >> partisanship probably is affected by where you live. oklahoma is a very red state. it is a very conservative state. i think probably new york, california, would be considered very liberal states. so i believe regions affect it. and i think it's probably historical in some places. >> tv has become thing me phone for politics as far as credibility is concerned, you know, it's obvious that fox is just a publicity arm of the republican national committee. >> i believe the only even

remotely nonpartisan channel is fox. and they aren't completely nonpartisan. i think the rest of them are completely partisan and they are very much liberal, slanted toward the democrat party. i think anybody that watches the news will see that. you just simply do not get the other side most of the time. >> c-span is neutral. if it's on c-span there is no, in my estimation, no political bias there they're just saying it like it is. if they're televising and this representative from south carolina, during the president's speech to the joint session of congress, shouts out, you lie, that shows up on c-span. but they don't comment about it. it's just, there it is. >> i believe the internet has only aided in the division in america because you have groups fragmented on the right. you have groups fragmented on

the left. and the very fact that they are on the internet is not very conducive to get a dialogue going between the two sides. moveon is a partisan group, just as the project 912 group is a partisan group, just as the tea bag crowd is a partisan group. we have our own issues that we support and we are against. and obviously we're going to support those issues and be against those we don't agree with. >> i believe because of the divisive nature of what's going on today that partisanship will get stronger. i think the parties will get stronger. i think the parties will stand more firmly on what they say they believe. i think there is also a possibility that if the republican party strays much further from its base, you will see the emergence of a third

party. and that party will be a conservative constitutionalist party. i hope that doesn't happen. >> the concept of the two-party system and people with different ideas about how we ought to govern ourselves go all the way back, past our founding fathers, and our nation would not be what it is without it. >> to see all of the winning entries in this year's studentcam competition, visit studentcam.org. >> let's meet another winner in c-span's studentcam documentary competition. through a five to eight-minute video we asked students to tell us about one of the country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. today we talk to sheema golbababa from jenks high school in jenks, oklahoma. what made you want to work on a

video about partisanship? >> i've always been drawn to projects that are multifaceted and i think partisanship embodies various perspectives. from the little definition of the term to whether it's believed an asset or impediment for america to carry. i like to dig deep into sources and subjects and partisanship seemed to be a topic in which i could do just that. >> in your documentary you covered a prescription drug rally, what was that like? >> i'd been looking for things that could been used artistically that to the show partisanships. i was surprised to see how many people in tulsa supported universal health care and i was pleased to be part of an event

that's uncommon in tulsa and oklahoma. >> what have you learned about partisanship in your documentary? >> i learned that partisanship is a misperceived term. recently, with the health care debates going on, it's felt the republicans and democrats are antithesis of each other. both strive for freedom, liberty and security for this nation and with my interviews with the republican chairman and the democrat chairman, they said the same three words in their interviews. so i think there's a misperception that they don't have anything in common. >> do you think the media affects politics? >> definitely. i think it's well known the media can play a role in the way political arguments progress. i think media has the ability to distort or enhance a studio -- a story, whichs