allies because we supported the principle that it was wrong for the soviets to be occupying afghanistan. now the tables have turned and now we're the occupiers and now the very people that used to help us are now shooting and killing us and now it's been revealed just recently with this release of information that they actually have some stinger missiles and in the last month or so, three of our helicopters have been shot down. where does this all end? one thing about the reports in the newspaper, i think if they change the definition, or the use of one term, i think it would change everybody's attitude. if people came around to believing that the taliban are people who aren't dedicated toward coming over here to kill us, like some of the al qaeda are, but the taliban are only interested in getting rid of the occupiers of their country system of we call them militants.

so we go in and we raid and shoot and kill and bomb and then we say, ah-ha we killed 37 militants today. what if we reported this always, like we did in the 1980's, what if we always reported -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. paul spks what if it was -- mr. paul: what if it with it was reported when freedom fighters were killed as when they were our friends and allies, the whole thing would change. they were formerly our allies and our so-called friends. so this is just a reflection on the ridiculousness of our endless policy of intervention and how so often our allies and our friends turn against us and our money, taxpayers' money is

so often used against this. i think this is a perfect example. we like to stop it. that's why we brought this resolution up. we don't want to see this war spread, and we want the american people to mow about it and we want this congress to know about it because foreign policy isn't even written in the constitution. the responsibility of how we run our foreign affairs is with the u.s. congress, and when we go to war it it should be a congressional function, not an executive function, and someday we may get there but right now today we have to do our very best to let people know the shortcomings of the policy we're following in pakistan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'm so honored to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding, and i'd like to remind my colleagues who are so hell-bent to get the training troops that

we have, 230 u.s. troops helping with the training in pakistan out of pakistan. i'd like to remind them on 9/11 we were attacked by al qaeda terrorists whose head was osama bin laden, and osama bin laden has been going back and forth across the afghani-pakistani border and there has been training going on with terrorists there and in yemen to try to foment war terrorism and to try to get them to move toward more attacks on the united states of america. this is a war that we're fighting to protect america as well as make sure the entire region over there is stable. pakistan is a nuclear power. if the taliban and al qaeda are successful in taking over that country, can you imagine what the rest of the world would have to deal with with them having the nuclear capability that they would have? that's one of the things we

have to talk about. and without the training -- i'd like to point this out -- without the training of our troops that are in pakistan as trainers, the 230 of them, the money that we're using to fight this war against the taliban and al qaeda would not be used as effectively and as efficiently because those people have to be trained to use the technology that we're giving them. and you have to have somebody over there that can train them and teach them about what this equipment can and will do. now, let me just make a couple of points. first of all, if we cut military ties to pakistan, it's crazy. the border between pakistan and afghanistan just goes all over the place. nobody can really tell you when you cross the border and go back and forth so you're going to have some mistakes made in going after the taliban or al qaeda terrorists in that region. and for us so cut aid and assistance to pakistan at a time when we're trying to win

the war and stop terrorism in afghanistan would be in my opinion insane. we need to continue to work with pakistan, not only for the stability of that country but to make sure that we stop the terrorist training that's taking place. now, there's no question. we have some differences, some policy differences with the pakistani government. but we have differences with a lot of our friends, but we still support them, especially when it's in our national interest to do so. and working with them and helping with the training is extremely important, as i stated a moment ago. and as i said before, the border between pakistan and afghanistan has mountains and valleys and it's extremely difficult to know where those borders are, and we must not allow the enemy to have sanctuary. that's why it's important for us to train their troops to be able to go after the taliban and al qaeda. because if osama bin laden can go into pakistan with impunity,

if the terrorists can go in there with impunity, if they can go back and forth across that border, we can never win the war. to say they can have sanctuary in pakistan is like saying to a football team, win the game but don't go beyond the 50-yard line. you can't let the enemy have sanctuary. if we didn't learn anything from vietnam we should have learned that. this is an entire breeding ground for terrorism, that border between pakistan and afghanistan, part of pakistan and all of afghanistan. and because we've been putting so much heat on the taliban and al qaeda, they have been moving their training grounds outside of afghanistan into yemen and into pakistan and that's why we must not allow them to have sanctuary. another thing i'd like to talk about that's not been mentioned is the rules of engagement. when i was coming in today i heard on the radio an afghanistan american soldier who had just gotten back from

afghanistan and he said the rules of engagement are crazy. he said he'll go into a combat situation and he'll have an enemy target and they'll say you can't fire on that target unless you get approval from your commanding officer and he says many times the soldiers who are put in that position will get killed before they get the approval to fire on their target. we need to change those rules of engagement so we can go after the enemy wherever they are. and get the job done. why should we handcuff our troops when they're in a combat situation? it makes absolutely no sense. that's a recipe for disaster. so if i were talking to the president or general petraeus i would say, let the troops do their job, don't give sanctuary to the enemy, help the pakistanis fight them over there and train the pakistanis over there and give our troops the ability when they hit a target to be able to go after that target, to knock that target out and not wait for orders that might endanger their very lives.

that's a good way to get all of our troops killed. we are in a war, not only in that area that's going to decide what's going to go on in the entire middle east, but iran and afghanistan and pakistan, but we're in a war that may very well come back to the united states and hurt us a great deal. we cannot let the terrorists have the ability with impunity to be trained and be ready to attack the united states again or any of our allies. and that's why we and our allies must work together to make sure we stop the terrorists from having the ability to feel safe in their training practices in pakistan, in afghanistan, yemen or wherever they are. this is a war and it's a war for the survival of many parts of the world and i believe including the united states. and so we must do whatever is necessary to win that war, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio.

mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: i want to say to my friend from indiana who is my friend and with whom i have served in this coping for 14 years and -- congress for 14 years and whose dedication to this nation should never be questioned. i want to say to my friend from indiana that this house concurrent resolution does not cut aid to pakistan. it does not cut assistance to pakistan. i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record an account of the direct u.s. aid and military reimbursements to pakistan from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: in a minute. in a minute. in this it points out the following -- that coalition support funds, pakistan during this period has received $8.1 billion, that with respect to foreign military financing it's received $2.1 billion, and with

respect to economic support funds it's received $4.7 billion. now, i'm not advocating that we strike those funds. what i am saying to my friend from indiana and to others who are concerned about this resolution is that this resolution is about stopping the united states from getting deeper into pakistan. now, some members may feel that we should have troops in pakistan, and this debate -- this is the first time we have had this debate because since we have troops there we can at least have the debate which is appropriate for congress, but my friend from indiana, who's raised several important questions, he's talked about osama bin laden. you know, the pakistan i.s.i., their intelligence, is extraordinary. they're so extraordinary that they can play a double game with the united states. they can ask us to help them go

after the taliban in pakistan, which we do, while at the same time they aid the taliban in afghanistan against our own troops. now, someone is that slick, who can basically con the united states, you can imagine what's going on in their mind with respect to helping the united states locate osama bin laden if in fact he's still alive. the other thing is we have to be concerned that wherever we send our troops that united states occupation fuels insurgencies. this is why we've had the casualties in iraq. this is why we've had casualties in afghanistan. it's why if we continue to expand our footprint in pakistan why there will be more u.s. casualties there and the final thing is that i want to answer my friend -- and i will yield him time in a minute -- you mentioned vietnam. prior to the end of the vietnam war in 1964 u.s. military advisors had been in and around south vietnam for a decade.

as the government of south vietnam grew weaker, the number of military advisors grew in number. the u.s. poured billions of dollars in u.s. aid -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield myself another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: the u.s. point of order billions of dollars into vietnam propping up the increasingly weak government and expanding communism in the world. now, does this scenario sound familiar? well, it should because that's exactly what's happening in pakistan and why i'm glad that mr. paul and i have been able to effect this debate. i yield time to my friend. mr. burton: the point i made in my floor statement, there are 230 military trainers in pakistan. the men that were killed were there on a training mission, and the money that we're giving to pakistan has to be used efficiently and effectively. and if we give them the money and the equipment and they don't know how to use it in the front lines it's a waste of our

money when we're fighting the enemy, when they're fighting the enemy, and that's why it's important for the 230 military trainers there to be there to make sure that our tax dollars that are going over there to fight the taliban and al qaeda is used effectively and efficiently. i hope you agree with that. mr. kucinich: well, reclaiming my time, i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield myself another half minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: reclaiming my time. if the gentleman supports the idea of the u.s. presence in afghanistan on the ground then your logic would follow perfectly. however, what i'm saying is that following the language in the war powers resolution, we've had three troops killed there. the atmosphere for the u.s. in pakistan is quite hostile. gal lineup poll demonstrated that. people don't -- gallop poll demonstrated that. people don't want us there. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york, mr.

mcmahon, will control the time of the gentleman from california. mr. mcmahon: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i recognize the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished manager and i really applaud congressman kucinich for allowing us to come to the floor today and discuss a crucial aspect of america's foreign policy. frankly, i believe it is time for us to come home from afghanistan having just returned just over two weeks ago in the early part of july when i was able to see the enormity of corruption and the lack of standing up by the afghan government. but i saw the resilience of the united states military and the willingness of the people in afghanistan to be able to desire a better quality of life. i think that we are now poised to build the afghan national security forces and to remove our forces from the dangers of the taliban neighbors who live in afghanistan who are not

leaving who have a difference of opinion. in the instance of pakistan, i think it is key that we recognize that there are some troubling circumstances. and, yes, we do have some questions as it relates to the people of pakistan understanding the great humanitarian work that the american people have done. the work they've done with usaid, the work they've done in helping to build schools, and it is the responsibility of the pakistan government to be able to emphasize what the presence of the united states is all about. i do not want boots on the ground dealing with hostility. but we have boots on the ground all around the world, but they're not engaged in hostility. they're providing, if you will, a level of peacekeeping and friendship and cooperation. now, we need to rid ourselves of the involvement of the i.s.i. in undermining american soldiers in afghanistan. . pakistani army military

forces are investing their treasure and we are providing them the training that is necessary. i believe what the congressman has done here is important and he is absolutely right to be able to have this discussion and to recognize that something is awry. we have to work together on the humanitarian side to be able to inform the pakistani people and the pakistan parliament and government officials to not run away from the humanitarian work that the united states is doing. we just passed a multibillion dollar bill that is going to work on rebuilding pakistan from the education and social and health care lines. so the training that is being done by our military should be done in a peaceful mode and that should be announced by the officials of the pakistan government and not run away from the good things we are doing

there. my concern to be able to acknowledge or affirm that we have troops there under the war powers act would suggest that we are there in a hostile manner. we are perceived with hostility because there has not been a standing up by our friends in pakistan to be able -- may have an additional minute? >> i yield the gentlelady another minute. ms. jackson lee: we are working collaboratively in a diplomatic manner to enhance the quality of life and provide the security, if you will, the pakistani people working with or working with their military in the forefront. so i would argue that we have much work to do in afghanistan. our troops need to come home. and the technical assistance that is being given to their neighbor, pakistan, must be defined as that, and not defined as a hostile manner. i'm looking forward to us

clarifying the relationship and ensuring that the pakistan intelligence is not undermining this diplomatic, civilian focus effort of our military, using training techniques and to be able to cooperate by allowing pakistani military to interact with our military for procedures and process. it is clear that we have a very contentious situation in the region, pakistan, india, bangladesh -- another 30 seconds. >> i yield 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: a contentious relationship there, but i have great hope as the co-chair of the pakistan caucus that working with pakistani americans, building on the core of hue man tarianism that we are working with the pakistan-american foundation that has been developed that we can overcome the image that the pakistan

people have that we are there to fight against taliban, al qaeda and osama bin laden and put them forward trained and equipped to be able to work on behalf of the pakistan people. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would inquire how much time do the respective debaters have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 8 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from florida has one minute. mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: in response to the gentlelady's comments about training troops, the u.s. has been training troops in iraq and afghanistan for over seven years

now with arguably little or no sign of success. yet, we are applying the same failed counterinsurgency strategies in iraq, afghanistan and now, perhaps pakistan. a seemingly endless stream of money, an estimated $1 trillion has been poured into the destruction of iraq and afghanistan, millions of dollars in taxpayer money spent to prop up a corrupt and unpopular central government and train local security forces, yet attacks on the u.s. and allied troops continue to rise. documents released by wikileaks report that pakistan intelligence service, i.s.i. support taliban attacks on u.s. forces. this despite an average of $1 billion a year in aid from the u.s. per year.

now, this raises a broader question, mr. speaker. this is really about today in washington. can the united states win the war in afghanistan or if any success at all, if our major ally pakistan, through their intelligence agency is cooperating with the taliban against our troops in afghanistan. i mean, listen to this, even afghanistan government officials are complaining about this. this is from -- and i ask unanimous consent to insert this article from righters in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: afghanistan questions pakistan's role, where they talk about -- they are complaining about pakistan's role in the insurgency is being ignored and an official of the

pakistan security council, quote, according to reuters, quote, warned that the war would not succeed unless there was a review of afghan policy by washington that focuses on taliban sanctuaries and bases in pakistan and their supporters. now, when you have things so bad that even in afghanistan where the government is hopelessly corrupt, they're complaining about pakistan, you see the kind of mess we could get into if we expand the footprint of our troops within the border of pakistan. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i will continue to reserve my precious one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from ohio.

mr. kucinich: i yield myself another two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: it's been said early on in this debate that the wikileaks' documents, 92,000 documents, i don't know who has had time to read them all, but according to what's been said publicly, that it represents nothing new. here are key findings of the wikileak documents that were reported in the "new york times" in the last day. our -- our troops have been placed in mortal danger, that countless innocent civilians have been killed by mistake, that the afghan government is hopelessly corrupt, that pakistan intelligence has collaborated with the taliban against the u.s., that the

pentagon has understated the fire power of the insurgents and top pakistani general who was visiting a suicide bombing school on a monthly basis. now, if this has been going on for years and nothing new, you have to ask the question, then why in the world why are we having that debate. if this is nothing new, why didn't the american people know about this, why did it take a document dump by wikileaks to wake up the congress and say wait a minute, the war isn't going the way you thought it was. it's not only a question of if we knew then what we know now, it's a question that do we remember what we knew then and why isn't it affecting our policy right now, why aren't we getting out of afghanistan? why are we pretending there is a withdrawal from iraq if we leave

50,000 troops and why would we be expanding our footprint in pakistan? reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. mcmahon: i continue to reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would like to ask how much time remains on each side because i'm going to reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 3 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes and the gentlewoman from florida has one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i have remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: the relationship with pakistan is one of the most complex and critically important in the world. while significant challenges remain, the u.s. and pakistan

have deep and mutual cooperation against insurgent groups. counterterrorism cooperation has led to significant losses to al qaeda's relationship and leadership within pakistan, with more than half of al qaeda senior leaders being killed or captured. the pakistani military has undertaken offenses in two provinces, putting sustained pressure on violent military groups. the u.s. and pakistan have also commenced a strategic dialogue which has expanded cooperation on a wide range of critical issues. even with these positive trends, the you us must continue to -- the u.s. must continue to press the pakistani government particularly its military and intelligence services to continue their strategic shift against extremists and stay on the offensive. mr. speaker, the u.s. needs to maintain the purpose in pakistan and i therefore urge the defeat of this dangerous resolution.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material into the record on house concurrent resolution 301. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: and i continue to reserved. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. mcmahon: i claim the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcmahon: i will just conclude by applauding the gentleman from ohio for his passion and concern for our men and women in uniform and certainly for the foreign policy of this nation, even though i join in disagreement of his position with my colleagues, the gentlelady from florida, the ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee. it's quite clear to anyone that our -- that america's relationship with pakistan is one that is fraught with

uncertainty, cloudyness. it's been clear since 1979 when the american embassy was stormed in islam bad and there are many different layers to this onion which is the society of pakistan. that being said, we know that from many pakistani americans who live in our districts that these are people both here in this country and in pakistan who want to have a strong relationship with america. and that's why it's so important, mr. speaker, that we have these boots on the ground, as we said, these few hundred military personnel who are making sure that not only our counterinsurgency funds but our civil funds are used in the right way. we are not engaged in hostilities in pakistan. and therefore, this resolution is misguided. it is dangerous. it sends the wrong message. and for those reasons, mr. chairman, i urge all of my colleagues in this house to oppose it.

and conclude by yielding the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i assume i have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. kucinich: i want to thank the gentlelady from florida for her commitment to this debate and for her passion to make sure american foreign policy always receives a very strong and ringing endorsement. i thank the gentleman from new york and the gentleman from california for this. and i thank mr. paul, who has been a very powerful voice in this country to talk about the limitations of power. people have been asking, why this resolution and why now. because i strongly believe that we should nip in the bud an

expansion of u.s. ground presence in pakistan. we need to do this to keep our troops out of harm's way. it's no secret the administration ordered hundreds of drone attacks in pakistan just this year resulting in the dits of hundreds of innocent civilians. it's not been widely discussed until today that we had over 120 u.s. military in the country, quote, training, unquote, pakistani security forces. we have to appreciate the "wall street journal"'s reporting on this where they covered the fact that there was an increase in forces in pakistan who are there to train pakistan military forces and it's a force comprised of the tribal regions. i want to say that the recent reports released by wikileaks and published in the "new york times" confirmed to us what we

already know, that nine years on, we are still uncovering an abundance of information and our presence in afghanistan is counterproductive and we want to further expand drone attacks in the presence of u.s. special forces in pakistan? the wikileaks' reports reveals while we are in pakistan spending millions to support them in their efforts to fight -- reshape their environment and fight the pakistani taliban, pakistan is in afghanistan helping the taliban to fight us now, regardless of one's support for opposition of the way the global war on terror has unfolded, this resolution has been about securing an open and meaningful debate about the expansion of war into pakistan. mr. speaker, article 1, section 8, puts very firmly the hands of congress the war power. we've seen imperial presidency and some that were not so imperial but nevertheless a war

power of their own, basically nullfying -- since the founding of this country -- this resolution is the way to put congress back into the debate over whether or not america commits troops anywhere in the world. i support the president but i don't support sending more troops for whatever reason into pakistan. i don't support sending more troops into afghanistan. i don't support sending more troops into iraq. i support bringing them home. that's the way you can support the troops, in my view. other members here in conscience and rightly understanding the world in a different way have a different point of view. i respect that, but it's time that congress has a say in this, and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1556, the previous question is

ordered. the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the concurrent resolution is -- mr. kucinich: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. kucinich: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adopting house concurrent resolution 301 will be followed by five-minute votes on suspending the rules with regard to h.r. 4899 and h.r. 4748. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are 372, four members voting present. the resolution is not agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. observe,y, to suspend the rules, received from the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4899 and concur in the senate amendment on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4899, an act making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules, recede from

the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4899 and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of represtatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage othe house proceedings for political or commerci purposes is expressly prohibited bthe u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this

tehe yeas are 308, the nays ar 114. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the motion to recede and concur in the senate amendment was agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4748 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4748, a bill to amend the office of national drug control policy re-authorization act of 2006 to require a northern counternarcotics strategy and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 413, the nays

are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas wish to be recognized? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent that my vote be placed in the record on h. con. res. 301. i was detained in a hearing and i ask my vote be recorded as no and be placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady's explanation will appear in the record. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the following appointments. the clerk: pursuant to section 201-b of the international religious freedom act and order

of the house january 6, 2009, the chair announces the following correction to the speaker's appointment of june 23, 2010 of the following member on the part of the house to the commission on international religious freedom. upon the recommendation of the minority leader, mr. ted vandermeade for a two year term to succeed ms. felice gare. act of 1988 and order of the house january 6, fwrine, the chair announces the speaker's appointment on the part of the house to the commission of international religious freedom, upon the recommendation of the minority leader. ms. nina shay, ending 2012 to succeed herself.

the speaker pro tempore: members engaging in conversations will take those conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20,

the chair will postponefurther proceedings on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: i move the house concur in the rules and concur in the senate amount to h.r. 2765. the clerk: h.r. 2765, an act to amend title 28, united states code to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen and the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney each controls 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add

extraneous remarks as they seem relevant to the bill under consideration. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: earlier this congress, i introduced together with congressman issa h.r. 2765 to protect americans' first amendment right against the threat posed by lible tourism. the house passed that bill by voice vote under suspension of the rules. the 110th congress had also passed that bill in this house as well. last week, the senate passed by you unanimous consent an amended version of h.r. 2765 named securing the protection of our enduring and established constitutional heritage act or speech. we consider the senate version today. it is the name given to the practice of doing an end run around the first amendment by suing authors and publishers in the courts of certain courts

with defamation laws as we do. written as a nation that is the cite for these actions. while we generally share a proud common law legal tradition with the united kingdom, it is true that they have laws that disfavor speech critical of public officials, contrary to our own constitutional tradition. as a result, the united kingdom has become the favorite destination of libel tourists. for example, in contrast to u.s. law, british law presumes the defendant is wrong and places the burden on the defendant to prove the truth of his or her allegedly statement. this speech in british law has drawn condemnation not only from american defenders of free speech but also from the united nations and some members of the british parliament. in addition to britain's

defamation law, procedural laws facilitate libel tourism over a defamation defendant. under their more responsive standard, british courts have been quick to take over jurisdiction though principally or even exclusively distributed in the united states, reaches even just a handful of readers in the united kingdom who whose internet site is visited by someone in the u.k. particularly concerns have been raised that as a result of the expansive exercise of jurisdiction in libel cases, the internet has made them suspicious. quote, in the internet age, the british libel laws can fight you know matter where you live. the senate amendments to h.r. 2765 build on my version that passed this congress maintaining

its core element. the senate language prohibits u.s. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with the first amendment or do not comport with our due process requirements. the senate language also contains continues to prohibit the enforcement of a foreign defamation judgment against interactive computer service if the party claims that the judgment is inconsistent with section 230 of the communications act of 1934. the purpose of this provision is to ensure that libel tourists do not attempt to chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer services rather than the actual author. in such circumstance, the service would take down the material, providing immunity is unhealthy incentive to take down materials. the senate language enhances an existing attorneys' fee provision so a court would be

able to award attorney fees if that party prevails. that provision was added in committee this year to put more teeth in the bill. the purpose of the provision is to display libel tourists through the burden and expense of defending a meritless enforcement action and to compensate authors and publishers when they are forced to do so. the most significant change made by the senate, which i support, is the addition of a declaratory judgment remedy. this provision would allow the u.s.-based party against whom a judgment is entered to seek a declaratory judgment in federal court finding that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the constitution, our laws of the united states under one of the grounds in the bill. a declaratory judgment remedy provides an added measure of protection for the free speech rights of american authors and publishers. last thursday, the "new york times" hailed the passage of this bill by the senate

sponsored by senator leahy as a great move forward for first amendment rights that are so important to our american way of life. i thank the judiciary committee chairman, ranking member lamar smith, the members of the judiciary committee and the co-sponsors of this bill for their support. and i greatly thank senator leahy, jeff sessions and long leadership on this issue. and i should say particularly senator leahy who is such a gentleman in moving this bill forward. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves and the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. rooney: i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. thomas jefferson observed that the only security of all is in a free press. the agitation it produces must be submitted to. it is necessary to keep the waters pure. it's safe to say jefferson would not take kindly to the subject

of h.r. 2675. in the wake of 9/11, the american media has become alarmed over a phenomenon calmed libel tourism which is the practice for suing for libel in a country with weaker free speech protections than the united states. surprisingly, most of these suits are filed in great britain. as its libel and slander laws provide writers and journalists less protection than those here in the united states system. how do courts handle foreign judgments that clash with the american legal values? a foreign ruling will not be enforced in the u.s. court if the ruling offends state public policy or the constitution. house version of h.r. 2765, which we passed unanimously in june, 2009, contains three major provisions. first it states that a u.s. court either state or federal shall not enforce a foreign judgment for defamation if the judgment is inconsistent with

the first amendment. second, it clarifies that a foreign ruling denying an american citizen due process guarantees will also not be enforced. and third, h.r. 2765 prevents enforcement of foreign rulings that complex with the telecommunications law that protects consumers' rights to criticize misconduct on internet bulletin boards. this version includes essential provisions to deter libel tourists from bringing these suits in the first place. among these is a feature that allows a u.s. citizen who loses a foreign suit to bring a declaratory judgment action in a federal court to determine whether the foreign verdict is repugnant to the constitution or the laws of the united states. mr. speaker, this bipartisan legislation provides appropriate and necessary protection for u.s. journalists and authors and

represents the strongest policy response to libel tourism. the issue has been thoroughly considered by the house judiciary committee. and i urge the members to support h.r. 2765 as amended by the other body. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from fla reserves his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. . mr. cohen: mr. delahunt's been an invaluable member of the judiciary committee for many years and contributed much to first amendment rights and participated as the vice chairman of the commercial administrative law subcommittee this year, an invaluable role that he actively engaged in and on this bill in particular he was very instrumental in its passage and i thank him for his service and on this particular bill in general and all the publishers and the authors also should know that mr. delahunt was very involved in this bill.

thank you. wand that i would like to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i have no speakers so i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. it's with great pleasure that this bill comes to a conclusion. "the new york times," we passed this in the 110th congress, we couldn't get the senate to agree on the language. we did it in this congress. it was a victory for writing, said "the new york times." a rare achievement for the senate to pass this particular bill by unanimous vote and it was an important bill that protects americans from the whill whim it's of -- whims of foreign libel judgments. this bill will safeguard authors and publishers threatened with ruinous foreign judgments. the united states, this particular first amendment

rights which have been jeopardized in places where the burden was shifted. so it's important as "the new york times" suggested and what is an outstonding -- outstanding editorial, mentioning a book, "funding evil: how terrorism is financed and how to stop it" where she was the object of a libel tourism action by an individual that got a judgment against her which was improper and she's been a very active and important citizen in saying that -- seeing that this bill was passed along with the publishers over the years. it's important that we pass this and "the new york times" editorial was so complete, it only failed to mention mr. delahunt's role in the passage of the bill. i wish it would have. with that i'd ask that we yield back the balance of my time and ask for a unanimous passage of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2765. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5143 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the qu clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5143, a bill to establish the national criminal justice commission. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from texas, mr. smilingt, -- smith, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous con stheant all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, the bill has examined the criminal justice system its in -- in its entirety to make recommendations for appropriate reform to the president and congress as well as state, local and tribal governments. the united states depends on the criminal justice system to maintain our system of security and we expect it to be reliable, fair and effective. it must provide a sense of justice for all americans and must treat victims and their families with compassion. the last comprehensive review of our criminal justice system was president johnson's commission on law enforcement and administration and justice conducted more than 45 years ago. to fight -- despite the progress in achieving fair outcomes in the criminal justice system since president johnson's commission was convened, there is still work that needs to be done to fulfill these objectives.

currently the united states has the highest reported incarceration rate in the world. whereas most countries lock up between 50 and 200 people for every 100,000 in their population, and only a handful of countries lock up more than 300 per 100,000, the united states leads the world in over 700 per 100,000 locked up today. this number is particularly egregious when you review the recent study conducted by a research that concluded that any rate that exceeded 300 per 100,000, the cost of additional incarceration reduced diminishing the terms. any rate over 500 per 100,000 is actually counterproductive. the united states rate again is over 700 per 100,000. minorities make up an alarmingly disproportion share of the incarcerated population of adults and june of niles. in fact, incarcerate for

african-americans is 4,000 per 100,000 in several states and when you consider the study that anything over 500 was counterproductive, we can see that a lot of money is being wasted and cousht productive incarceration. in fact, in those 10 states, with the incarceration of african-americans approaching 4,000, you could spend thousands of dollars for every child in that community -- in those communities with the money that's being wasted now on counterproductive incarceration. and that money could be put in evidence-based programs that have been shown and proven not only to reduce crime but save more money than the program's cost. we know that those comprehensive programs work. they work everywhere you put them into effect and we need to invest in those rather than counterproductive incarceration. now, h.r. 5143 calls for a distinguished nonpartisan group of experts to undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, to promote broad reform.

and while this bill calls for an examination of the criminal justice system, it is intended to advance a national conversation and facilitate policy changes to compliment not replace ongoing reform efforts. now the companion bill to this bill was introduced in the senate by my virginia colleague, senator jim web, who has been a tireless advocate and a strong advocate for this study commission. this bill in the house has been introduced by a former prosecutor from massachusetts, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. delahunt, who has also been a strong advocate for intelligent criminal justice policies. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such timed a i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, h.r. 5143 establishes a national criminal justice commission consisting of a bipartisan panel of 14 experts appointed by the president, the majority and

minority lead nrts senate, the speaker and minority leader in the house. the commission will review all areas of the criminal justice system at the federal, state, local and tribal levels. it will also examine national trends in criminal justice costs, practices and policies. further the commission will provide recommendations for trainees to prevent and deter crime and violence. the recommendations should also help to reduce recidivism, improve cost effectiveness and ensure the interest of justice at every step of the criminal justice system. h.r. 5143 expresses the sense of congress that the commission should work toward unanimousity in making its findings and recommendations. senator jim web of virginia introduced legislation to establish this in the senate. the bill has co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of 39 senators in the house, my friend from massachusetts, bill delahunt, a colleague on the judiciary committee, and a former district attorney himself, introduced the house companion legislation to

establish the commission. the senior member of the judiciary committee, mr. dul delahunt, reached across the aisle to republican members, including mr. issa and mr. rooney as well as myself to co-sponsor this important piece of legislation. i must confess initially to having some concerns about the bill. why do we need another commission to do the work and consider the issues that we in dong and on the judiciary committee ought to be doing? however, my friend from massachusetts was insistent and persuasive and convincing me that the commission will be able to consider the data and underlying policy considerations without political considerations. another reason, mr. speaker, to support the measure is that it will serve as a fitting tribute to our colleague from massachusetts who is retiring at the end of this congress. passage of this bill represents a historic opportunity to undertake a bipartisan, thorough and comprehensive review of what works and what does not work at every level of the criminal justice system. for this and for his many other

contributions to the american people, we can thank congressman delahunt who i know is getting ready to speak on this legislation momentarily. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 5143 and before i reserve the balance of my time, i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. dul delahunt, for being such an active and effective member of the judiciary committee, for being a close personal friend whose advise i clearly take and with that i'll -- advice i clearly take and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd yield such time as he may consume to the lead sponsor of the house bill, former prosecutor from massachusetts, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. delahunt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. delahunt: thank you, mr. chairman. and bmp i begin let me -- and before i begin let me extend a note of gratitude to the ranking member from texas for his kind

and generous words. i also want to indicate that i'm wearing a tie that has cape cod emblazoned on this tie, that was given to me by mr. smith on behalf of the republicans on the judiciary committee. at the time i didn't know whether it was a sign of respect or affection. later i learned it was because i continually wear cape cod ties, that they were concerned that i had no tie without a stain on it. so, lamar, thank you, thank you for those kind words. it's been truly an honor to serve with you and the republicans on the judiciary committee these past 14 years.

we've done, i think, extraordinary work, we've done it together, we've had our disagreements, but those disagreements often times yielded -- oftentimes yielded a consensus that worked for the benefit of the american people. you know, this bill, i guess some would consider it rare for a concept that is supported not only by the american civil liberties union and the national association of criminal defense attorneys, but also the from a term order of police and the international association of chiefs of police to come to this floor on the suspension calendar , that truly is extraordinary. but all of those organizations i would suggest share the same goal and that is, how do we deal

with crime in america in a way that makes us safer but saves us money while still protecting fundamental american liberties and values? the bill's been described by my good friend from virginia and by mr. smith in terms of what it does. and it will result in a commission that will do a comprehensive and holistic review of our criminal justice system at all levels, federal, state and local. and make findings and recommendations to prevent, deter and reduce crime and violence in our country. it's important to note, too, that the commission will be tasked with improving the cost effectiveness of the criminal justice system so that tax dollars are not wasted on

inefficient, infective programs. there are excellent programs that are working currently and i believe that they are responsible to a large degree for the reduction that we have observed in violence in america. . we have to identify what makes sense and pursue it, because let's not forget it's the state and local governments that bear most of the burden. that's where the action is. it's no secret that the states find themselves in profound

fiscal straits. on the cover of the june 28 edition of "time" magazine, a state license plate was depicted with the word bankrupt on it. now, the issues of safety, crime and justice no -- know no political boundary. as evidenced by the bipartisan support that this bill has enen deered and let me pause and thank mr. rooney and mr. issa along with again, let me emphasize the great leadership of my chairman, bobby scott, on this matter, along with congresswoman fudge, who if i'm not sure is in the chamber, will be running over to speak.

again, we want to reduce crime in everywhere we're concerned that the law enforcement agencies in this country and other groups have the resources to keep our streets safe. but also insist that the system not needlessly waste taxpayer dollars. as chairman scott indicated, the united states currently incarcerates 2.3 million individuals. it's the highest incarceration rate in the world. more than 90% of the incarcerated add utilities in this -- adults in this country are incarcerated at state and -- in the state and local systems, filling their prisons.

and the pew center present difficulties that by 2011, continued state and local prison growth will cost taxpayers an additional $75 billion. that's simply unsustainable. this bill will help us battle those rising escalating figures and hopefully continue the decline that we observe in terms of crimes of violence in this country. it will allow us to take that comprehensive "national review" -- this is not an audit of individual state systems. this is a review. there are no mandates and the commission will issue concrete recommendations. again as the chairman of the subcommittee alluded to, it's

been more than four decades since a comprehensive review of criminal justice was conducted. it was 1965 when president johnson established the commission on law enforcement and administration of justice, so-called kerna commission. the commission examined criminal justice systems in great detail and reported over 200 recommendations to control crime and improve justice in this country. the time to take this on is now. and i predict it will lead to a safer america and a smarter, more effective criminal justice system. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, who is a member of the judiciary committee and co-sponsor of this

legislation. mr. rooney: thanks to the ranking member for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 5143, the national criminal justice commission act. i'm proud to have been an original co-sponsor joining others on such an important bill and i would take liberty to thank mr. della hunt for seeking me out being a freshman and letting me take a leadership role which will do a lot of good for fighting crime. as a former prosecutor, it's important to take a close look at what works and what does not work in our criminal justice system. this bipartisan bill will create a commission to study all aspects of our criminal justice system and report back on what we can do better to prevent crime, reduce violence and control costs. this bill will create a bipartisan commission charged with undertaking an 18th-month

review of the nation's criminal justice system. the commission will study all areas of the criminal justice system, including federal, state, tribal systems. after conducting the review, the commission will make the recommendations for changes in or continuation of oversight, policies, practices and laws designed to prevent, deter and reduce crime and violence. the proved cost effectiveness and ensure the interests of justice. this bill couldn't come at a better time. every year, congress continues to add more and more laws to our u.s. code, yet we haven't taken a look to find what is out of date and what is duplicative. this will be the first time in over 40 years that we will undertake such a study. i'm proud and honored to be a co-sponsor of this bill, along with ms. fudge, mr. issa, ranking member smith and

especially mr. delahunt. i urge my colleagues to support it as well and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i'm prepared to close. mr. smith: we have no other speakers, so i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: this commission will study our criminal justice system to ascertain what we can do to use our resources in a most cost effective manner to reduce crime. we know that comprehensive approaches to crime work. in massachusetts, they had a comprehensive approach to juvenile crime where they had a dozen or so murders every year. they had a comprehensive approach to the problem. they reduced juvenile murders from 13 a year to zero for three consecutive years. and in pennsylvania, they invested in comprehensive

programs in 100 different localities and $60 million and counted up a few years later and figured they saved over $300 million, five times more than they spent because they were effective in reducing crime and other social problems. in virginia, they had an area where they had 19 murders one year and came in with an evidence-based approach to crime reduction and in a couple of years, they had two murders. if you look at $2.5 million invested, there is no doubt we saved that much in reduced medical care at the medical college of virginia trauma unit. we can reduce crime and save money. 700,000 prisoners are being released from prison every year. and we know that 2/3 of them are going right back to prison without intervention. so this is an opportunity for investment. we know that the united states' incarceration rate is number one in the world and is already so

high that the pew center research says it is counterproductive and this study will show what we can do by showing what works and what does not and how we can have a focus on crime policy. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. delahunt and my colleague from virginia, senator webb to create a commission to outline strategies to reduce crime. i would hope we would adopt the bill, create the commission, reduce crime and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5143 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5281 as amended. the clerk: h.r. 5281, a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against federal officers or agencies to federal courts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, the removal clarification act of 2010 will enable federal officials, federal officers in the words of the statute to remove cases filed against them to federal court in accordance with the spirit and intent of the current federal officer removal statute. under the federal removal -- under the federal officer removal statute, federal officers are able to remove a case out of state court into federal court when it involves the federal officer's exercise of his or her official responsibility. however, more than 40 states have pre-suit discovery procedures that require individuals to submit to

deposition or respond to discovery requests even when a civil action has not yet been filed. courts are split on whether the current federal officer removal statute applies to pre-suit discovery. this means that federal officers can be forced to litigate in state court despite the federal court's -- excuse me, despite the federal statute's contrary intent. this bill will clarify that a federal officer may remove any legally enforceable demand for his or her testimony or document if the basis for contesting the demand has to do with the officer's exercise of his or her official responsibility. it will also allow for appeal to the federal circuit court if the district court remands the matter back to the state court over objection over the federal officer. some clarity issues were raised by witnesses during a court and

competition policy subcommittee hearing on the bill. since the subcommittee markup, we have worked to address those issues and the bill before us today clarifies the bill without making substantive changes. in particular, the addition of quote, ancillary to another proceeding, end quote, helped clarify that the bill will not result in the removal of entire state court actions to federal court simply because a federal officer is sent a discovery request. in this type of situation, the federal court is to consider the discovery request as a separate proceeding from the underlying state court case so that it will not be removed and dealt with separately without removing the underlying case. nor will this bill lead to cases being dismissed in federal court on the grounds that there is no

federal corrollary to pre-suit discovery. application of the law will be considered as substantive under the erie doctrine. the federal court will apply the state substantive law. this does not create a substantive loophole but makes a procedural clarification. finally, the bill makes clear that the timing requirement under 28 u.s.c. section 1446 is not affected. it restates the 30-day requirement for removing the case after the judicial order is sought as well as after the judicial order is enforced. this addition to section 1446 is limited to only the federal officer removal under section 1442.

this bill has strong bipartisan support. and i would like to thank chairman conyers, ranking member smith and ranking member of the court subcommittee, howard coble of north carolina, for their work on this bill, and i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: the removal clarification act of 2010 amends a statute that allows federal officers under limited conditions to remove cases filed against them in state court to the u.s. district court for disposition. the purpose of concurrent law is to restrict state courts the power to hold federal officers liable for acts allegedly performed in the execution of their federal duties. this doesn't mean federal officers can break the law, it just means these cases are transferred to federal courts

for determination. federal officers and agents, even members of congress, should be forced to answer to federal courts for their conduct during federal duties. federal courts, however, have inconsistently interpreted the current statute and that inconsistency can harm federal interests. for example, this march, the court of appeals for the fifth circuit upheld a district court ruling in the state of texas that the federal removal statute does not apply to texas law involving pre-suit discovery against a federal officer, because 46 other states have similar laws, the house general counsel's office became concerned that more federal courts will adopt the fifth circuit's logic and then urge us to clarify the federal law. the problem occurs when a plaintiff considering a suit against a federal officer petitions for discovery without actually filing suit in a state court. many federal courts have held

that this conduct only anticipates a suit. it isn't a cause of action as contemplated and covered by the current federal removal statute. the problem is compounded because a separate federal statute requires federal courts to send any case back to state court if at any time before the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. . it does not apply to suits involving federal officers. this means remanded cases brought against federal officers under these conditions cannot find their way back to the federal court. this result is as odds with the purpose of the federal removal and remanned statutes. the bill before us will clarify existing federal law and overturn the recent fifth circuit ruling. it restores the core purpose of the removal statute, by ensuring any claim against federal officers at any stage or proceeding or even potential

proceeding will be entertained in a federal court. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5281 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: i thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire, mr. speaker, as to how many witnesses or how many speakers my friend from florida has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, we have no more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, we would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5281 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules

are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> meeb, i move to suspend the rules -- mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2780, a bill to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 related to restricted buildings and grounds of title 18 united states code. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from florida, will rooney, will each control 20 minutes -- mr. rooney, will each control 20 minutes. mr. scott: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, h.r. 2780 will assist the secret service to perform duties, current federal law prohibits individuals from entering or remaining in areas cordoned off as a restricted area because of protection being provided by the secret service. this bill would clarify in a thank the prohibition only applies to those who do not have lawful authority to be in those areas. men and women in secret service conduct themselves with valor and professionalism while carrying out their protective function of their agency. they provide protection for a variety of people and event, including the president of the united states and national special security events. this bill will assist the men

and women of the secret service in doing their jobs. i commend my colleague from florida, mr. rooney, for his work on this bill which eliminates the ambiguity in the present law. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, the united states secret service began providing protective services following the assassination of president mckinley in 1901. the services' protection responsibilities have since expanded to include the first family, the vice president, former presidents, heads of state and others. the service also provides protection of special events of national significance. to address this vital responsibility, secret service must anticipate, recognize and assess threat situations and initiate strategies to eliminate or reduce the threats or

security vulnerabilities. key components to the services' protection mission is securing the buildings and grounds where protectees work or visit. from the white house to a hotel ballroom, the secret service must provide a secure environment for the president and other protectees. h.r. 2780 ensures that the secret service has the ability to secure all necessary areas surrounding the restricted buildings and grounds that house our leaders, their families and foreign heads of state. the bill clarifies section 1752 of title 18 which sets penalties for knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without the lawful authority to do. so currently written, the code does not distinguish between those who are there lawfully such as secret service agents and other authorized staff and those who are there without permission.

this bill does not create any new authorities for the secret service and does not restrict the liberties of american citizens. h.r. 2780 simply clarifies and improves existing criminal statutes that are necessary for the secret service to resolve security issues and implement prevention strategies before tragedy strikes. there have been enough climbing incidents at the white house events for one website to dedicate itself to chronicling these episodes. while some of these individuals are attempting a collegiate prank, others -- other such breaches should be -- could be catastrophic. this bill will enable the united states secret service to continue to deliver the highest level level of protective can -- level of protective services. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution -- legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back.

the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. has the gentleman yielded back all of his time? mr. rooney: yes, mr. speaker, i have no speakers. i yield back. mr. scott: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back -- virginia yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2780 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5662 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5662, a bill to amend title 18 united states code with respect to the offense of stalking. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, the stalkers act of 2010 makes a number of changes to title 18 of united states code with respect to the offense of stalking.

it clarifies and enhances the current law. first it allows law enforcement to intervene j cases where a victim may not be aware of the seriousness of the threat before it's too late. the existing statute requires a person to have reasonable fear of bodily injury. these injuries are difficult to demonstrate, often frustrating both victims and prosecutors. h.r. 5662 addresses this problem by permitting law enforcement to intervene in any incident of stalking that might reasonably be expected to cause another person serious emotional distress. this small change will go a long way toward both effective law enforcement and justice for victims. second the bill reaches criminals who make use of new technologies to stalk their victims. this extends the law to any course of conduct in or substantially affecting interstate commerce which will apply to cyberstalking and other forms of stalking that employ

technologies. the bill takes steps toward more federal enforcement of the stalking laws and statutes. it increases the maximum term of imprisonment if the victim is under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. the bill also requires an th attorney general to conduct an annual study of best practices and enforcement of stalking laws nationwide. in short this legislation updates current law to target the full rake of behavior that stalkers direct toward their victims. it will help law enforcement seek justice, help victims seek closure and increase protections to the most vulnerable amongst us. i want to thank the gentlelady from california, mrs. loretta san chess, for her hard work and advocacy on behalf of victims of stalking. i ask my vic testimony i -- colleagues to join me and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: first let me say, mr. speaker, both as a member of congress and as a former attorney general of the state of california, i've long been concerned with the plight of dwhose have been victimized by crime, of the antistalking law we have in the state of california, it was one that we worked with local law enforcement on and the agents that worked for me also worked on that in coordination with the local law enforcement officers. and certainly those who have suffered from the threats of stalkers warrant our concern and our action. i also would like to acknowledge the work, the pioneering work that was done by the gentleman from california, mr. royce, on this, with the original federal antistalking legislation. and i certainly appreciate the motivations and efforts of the gentlelady from california, who brings this bill here today in an effort to respond to this serious issue. however, i must suggest that legislation of this magnitude is

of sufficient importance that it warrants attention by our committee, commence ath with the serious nation of the stalking issue. we've had no hearings on this bill no, markup no, legislative process of any kind. and until this evening we did not even know the full contents of this bill and now members are being asked to vote on it. further it's my understanding the bill was added to the suspension calendar late last night. i understand that we may need to revisit the federal statute, now, if this is not adequate to protect the victims of stalking but having just received the final coppy of the final version, i do wish we'd had more time to devote to this important bill. certainly victims of emotionally and physically devastating crimes like stalking deserve the very best this congress can produce rather than us perhaps making some errors in the bill that we are considering, particularly a bill that was finalized an hour before vote.

although this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules, the lack of process surrounding this vote seems to have suspended all of the rules, unfortunately. sfefrls the tweap -- i support this measure and i would argue that all members should support this measure. however, i do feel it necessary to register strong disappointment concerning the method with which this bill has been brought to the floor. and with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield such time as she may consume to a strong advocate for victims of stalking, the gentlelady from california, mrs. loretta sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california voiced. .

ms. sanchez: i thank our chairman for bringing this forward. year and a half ago, we put the first stalking legislation together for the uniform code of military justice. that is the code or the laws that govern our military. and since i'm the ranking woman on all military issues here, i was the author of that. in having looked at that and done that for the military code, i thought about all the issues that were still outstanding in the current federal civil code. and so i'm here today to thank you, chairman, for allowing me to bring this long overdue piece of legislation, the stalkers act of 2010. representative virginia foxx of north carolina and i have bridged party lines to introduce h.r. 5662 and i thank her for

her leadership on this issue. there is also a companion bill that will be introduced in the senate we hope next week. no one can deny that the internet is a remarkable tool capable of connecting billions of people throughout the world. unfortunately, it has also proven to be an effective weapon for stalkers to prey on innocent people. current federal stalking statutes simply have not caught up with what is going on with the new tools and the emerging technologies that criminals have at their disposal. and so the stalkers act would bring our laws into the 21st century by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to combat stalking in the digital age. the stalkers act will protect victims and empower prosecutors by increasing the scope to cover acts of electronic monitoring,

spyware, bugging and other new technologies as they develop. currently, federal laws cannot be enforced unless victims can demonstrate they are in fear of physical injuries, because stalking as a gateway to more violent acts. this demonstrates that they have reasonable fear, it may be too late. the stalkers act lowers the threshold by permitting law enforcement to prevent stalking that is reasonably expected to cause another person serious emotional distress. our laws should help to protect the victims, not to serve as a roadblock to their safety. this legislation helps to do that. stalking is about power and control. it is a violation of the worst kind and our justice system needs every tool available to combat this crime. so i'm proud to introduce the stalkers act and i urge my

colleagues to pass this bill. it is a time to stop stalking and other forms of intimidation and it is time to be on the sides of victims. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i do rise in support of this bill. anybody who has spoken with or in anyway had an opportunity to meet with those who had been victims of stalkers understands the terrible emotional impact that this illegal activity can have. oftentimes, it is an act precede ent to actual physical harm but when physical harm is not done, the emotional toll is, in fact, real and extensive. this bill, i think, furthers the interests that we have in the

federal anti-stalking law, but at the same time, i do register my reservation in the manner which it was brought forward without full consultation with those of us on this side of the aisle on the committee. nonetheless, it's a good idea and i urge my colleagues to support it. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i want to thank my colleagues from california, mr. lungren, for his support and gentlelady california for her strong advocacy on behalf of victims of stalking and hope to pass the bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5662 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. and without objection, the

motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5827 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5827 a bill to amend title 11 of the united states code to include firearms in the types of property allowable under the alternative provision for exempting property from the estate. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. i yield all of the time to the sponsor, mr. boccieri and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.

the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. boccieri: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boccieri: while congress works to pull ourselves out of this economic recession, we continue to struggle with depleted savings and financial hardship. the financial challenges should not affect a person's individual's rights in their ability to protect their family. that is why i'm in strong support for h.r. the act. my bill offers protection. h.r. 5827 provides an example of an exemption in the federal bankruptcy code for personal firearms. in 2005, debtors who filed bankruptcy could retain household goods such as radios,

tv's, v.c.r.'s and linens but not firearms. bankruptcy for gun owners not only means possession of a family heirloom but for the ability to protect their own family. those families who file bankruptcy are left without this constitutionally provided right. this ensures that people who file for bankruptcy will not lose a treasured family heirloom or sporting equipment passed down from one generation to the next. i happen to have a weapon that was passed down many from my grandfather from the second world war. as a small arms expert and a hunter in ohio, i know that firearms are not just mere possessions but family heirlooms as well. my friends national park ohio want protection for those rights. this will ensure that people can

keep these possessions and pass them on. the rights are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. one needs only to look further than the words of ohio during autumn to know this is true. thank you, mr. speaker. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. lungren is recognized. mr. lungren: i rise in support of h.r. 5827 and yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to protecting the gun owners in bankruptcy act of 2010 because it does recognize that it is not suspended during periods of financial hardship. the second amendment gives every american to keep and bear arms. in 2008, the supreme court

confirmed in a decision that quote, there is no doubt on the basis of texan history that the second amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms, end quote. the right to defend ones self and one family was reinforced this year when in mcdonald, the courts prohibited state and local legislatures from passing laws infringing on an individual's second amendment rights. following passage of this bill, a unowner's -- will be protected against overreaching legislatures, but also from the harsh realities from the current economic crisis. americans need not be reminded that america is mired in the worst economic depression. bankruptcy filings in the first quarter have increased 41% over the first quarter of 2009. the bill we are considering today recognizing the constitutional rights do not halt in the face of financial

difficulty. it creates a new fed ex emshon that places a personal firearm beyond the reach of creditors and allows a debtor to avoid leins on the firearm. the bankruptcy court already exempts a variety of other basic items like linens and other household goods. but the bill confers a debtor can maintain his or her safety while the case is pending. the federal bankruptcy exemption we are creating is consistent with the principles embodied in the second amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the bill. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio, mr. boccieri is recognized. mr. boccieri: i yield to the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: thank you. and i thank my colleagues. mr. speaker, i rise in strong

opposition to h.r. 5827. i fail to see why we need to protect guns in a bankruptcy proceeding. this bill had no hearing. it was not marked up. it only had 21 co-sponsors. suspension bills should be reserved for none controversial items. anywhere from 80 to 100 members will be voting against this. this bill should have gone through regular order. bankruptcy is a tough time for everybody. i sympathesize greatly with individuals and families who are facing a bankruptcy. but as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, personal assets are turned over to bankruptcy trustees. the trustees collect assets, cars, boats and so on. banks can be called for all of these items. the process is designed to provide protections for both the bankruptcy individual and the ones owed money. some items are exempt as they are essential to one's

livelihood. we want someone to have a fresh start and therefore the law prevents some items from being turned over. under federal law, assets like homes, life insurance contracts, and retirement funds are exempt with reasonable limits. what is special about guns, though that this should have a special carve out and the language would allow any single gun from being trned over. take for example, a gun costing several thousands of dollars. the bankruptcy individual would get to keep these guns. i understand the committee has brought up revised text to correct this loophole but this is another reason why the bill should have gone through normal process hearing and a markup. studies have shown that the presence of guns in house holds, especially those experiencing

bankruptcy enhances the risk of suicide or even worse, murder-suicide. according to the national death reporting system, 12% of murder-suicides and suicides were brought on by financial problems. stories of murder-suicides also include descriptions of financial struggles. in june, 2010, a california couple died in a murder-suicide and their three yorlede son was shot multiple times. the five-year-old said his father tried to shoot him. the family started missing payments in early 2009 and filed for bankruptcy in february of 2010. ? february, 2010, a florida couple died of gunshot wounds in a murder-suicide and what the local newspaper described the end of a long history of money troubles. they filed for bankruptcy in 2004, listing more than 200,000

in debt. the couples' two younger daughters hid in the bathroom. in june of 2009, a family of four, including two children were shot to death in a murder-suicide. the parents were in debt and struggled for five years. the couple had filed chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2004 and the trustees constructed a plan to repay their debt, but failed to make the payments. the case was converted to a chapter seven which forced the couple to lick which date their assets. a hearing was scheduled to occur two months after the murder-suicide. this bill wrongly puts guns before the health and safety of families. as far the as the second amendment rights and especially with the keller decision, people have a right to own a gun. i'm not disputing that, but again, we are talking about bankruptcy and we are talking

about those that collect guns and have many, many guns, which are worth a lot of money and they should be repaying that debt. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yeeltsdz back. the gentleman from california -- yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: let me say at the very beginning, i understand the sincerity and strength and conviction of the gentlelady from new york on this issue. we have a disagreement with respect to the times when a firearm has been utilized to protect people from those who would other wise do them harm and i think there are some other reports that would suggest that that happens far more in instances than those incidents which result in harm to the

owner of the gun or someone in his or her family. one of the things i would like to put on the record is the limited effect of today's amendment when a debtor files for bankruptcy relief, he or she must choose whether to claim the package of fed ex emshons or state exemptions available in the state of his our her residence. debtors claim state exemptions because they are more generous. moreover, under current bankruptcy law, states may opt out by passing a law that prohibits debtors from claiming the fed ex emshon. . 34 states have adopted such oph out legislation. -- opt out legislation. i do believe it is an appropriate piece of legislation

but one should understand the limited nature of its application. and, mr. speaker, let me just conclude by saying that while i support the creation of this exemption, the exemption that the americans really want right now are exemptions from unemployment and skyrocketing national debt. when i was home in my district this past weekend my constituents talked to me about the exemption from the crushing burden of higher taxes that is poised to be unleashed upon them by the majority in this house at the end of the year. and i am bemused at times when i hear people saying, well, you republicans won't pay for the tax cuts that are already in existence. which is another way of saying that government has the first call on your money and therefore if we have lower taxes then otherwise would be the case,

somehow we have done something wrong. when in fact what will occur if we do not extend the current rates of taxes on the federal level will be by some calculations the most massive single tax increase in the history of the united states. i might yield in just a moment. and that in fact is very, very disappointing. it is sort of a play on the language i used to hear on this floor from the majority when they used to talk about tax expenditures. that's another way of talking about the impact of, quote-unquote, tax cuts, which means somehow the federal government is expending something when it allows you or me or any american to keep the money in their pocket. that does indicate a philosophical difference that does divide us unfortunately.

one which is based on the premise that the money you earn is not yours. the money you earn is kept by you only at the sufficient rans of the -- sufferance of the government. and if in fact the government by its generosity allows you to keep your money there, somehow you should genuflect in sumcation. because in effect you have done -- sumcation. because in fact you have done something to take money in a thank justly belongs to them. we're going to find out by the end of this year whether in fact that concept of whose money it is prevails or whether it is in my judgment, the proper viewpoint that the money you earn is, in your case, yours first and government ought to only exact the smallest amount of funds, that which is necessary to do those things that are required by government function. and so i must lament that fact

while i do continue to support this piece of legislation. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself for as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boccieri: mr. speaker, today we're talking about what is in the family's heir looms, their possessions. i know the republican would like to draw this into a long debate about how we got into this mess. but i'll remind the gentleman that day one, when 2009 when the 111th congress started, we were faced one precedented budgets, deficits, that were handed over to us from the previous administration, 3 -- $3.5 trillion, an economy that was in freefall, we didn't know where it was going to land. we were faced with two unfunded wars and unregulated greed on wall street and a banking crisis that was affecting so many

install businesses. i'll remind the gentleman that while the policies that allowed us to get into this ditch are not at the heart of this debate, certainly he is welcome to debate us as we proceed further on how we got into this economic mess and what measures we're taking to get ourselves out of this. mr. speaker, i have no further speakers but i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i would just remind my colleague from ohio that the last time that we had a balanced budget on the federal level was when we had a democrat in the white house and a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate. perhaps wes ought to try that again after november. i support this legislation. i hope that there will be a strong support for it and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. boccieri: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to close at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boccieri: thank you, mr. speaker. i would remind the gentleman, too, on the other side that it was a republican-controlled congress and a republican president that allowed us to get $11 trillion in debt when the last democrat-controlled white house had a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. so now that the facts are straight, i just want to be clear that this legislation is about amending the federal bankruptcy codes to exempt furniture that have already been used to exempt furniture, musical instruments, jewelry and other household goods to be allowed to exempt a person's heirlooms, their firearm that has been passed on from generation to generation. i believe that a majority of americans agree with the second amendment. and the constitutional right that we bear arms. we have upheld its validity for hundreds of years because in many cases a family's guns are

heirlooms and treasured pieces of family history that should not be subjected to financial hardship. i spoke of my grandfather's gun that has been handed down to me now in two successive generations. and one fact, one principle this country was founded upon was the ability of our people to provide their own protection. bearing this in mind and this choicer to caliper spectacularive, we respect the rights of gun owners as a shared value, as we see amongst democrats and some republicans. it is not a republican or democratic issue but a foundational value of american ideals. we must protect the rights guaranteed to us but our founding fathers no matter what financial circumstances a citizen must face. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. boccieri, yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5827 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3

of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- >> mr. chairmanworks that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman asks for the yeas and nays. mrs. mccarthy: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the ja the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pirsuent to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. equip the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. poe of texas for today until 5:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask for 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, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. government botch mr. quigley of illinois, ms. woolsey of california, ms. kaptur from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. 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. moran of kansas. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cao: mr. speaker, i rise

today to discuss the ongoing maritime conflict in the south china sea and the need for the united states to support long-term sovereignty of the vietnamese people. given this conflict will destabilize trade in its region, this is a matter of great importance for all of us in this esteemed body. since the summer of 2009, reports of maritime disputes in the south china sea have risen. i continue to hear of aggression from chinese ships and submarines interfering with the freedom of navigation of neighboring asian countries. i also hear of aggressive actions being taken towards the united states interests as well and this is particularly troubling and unacceptable. according to reports, china has committed aggressive maritime acts against southeast asian countries including japan, the philippines, taiwan, malaysia and especially the people of vietnam.

china claims that ocean territory includes many islands and extends into much of the south china sea. if we were to look at the map of these south china sea, we'd see that china is here, vietnam is here, the philippines is here and malaysia is located here and china, being the farthest away from the islands as well as these islands, claims to have dominion over all of them. these claims, along with their aggressive presence, have caused tensions between the people of southeast asia and china to grow. the conflicts in the south china sea is hindering free navigation of these waters. which could negatively affect commercial interests and regional security. this would directly effect the livelihood of peaceful people in these nations. the time has come for the united states to take a strong stance against china's harassment before these actions escalate

into hostile confrontations. china's hostile relationship has been reported and has gone so far as to commit aggressive actions toward vietnamese citizens. as a vietnamese american, i'm especially interested in the territorial integrity of my native country and i'm concerned to hear reports outlining aggressive actions toward vietnamese citizens, especially fishermen who have -- that have resulted in injuries, damages to their fishing vessels and in severe cases, death. the goal of the united states diplomacy should be to recognize the tensions in this region and to concentrate on first aleaveating this tension. the united states should strongly consider advocating for china's relief of the disputed territories, like the sprattly and par sol islands, and to ensure multilateral dialogue and action to resolve the ongoing maritime disputes.

. what is the aggression? there is no question china continues to seek additional sources of energy particularly across africa where their influence continues to grow. according to reports, china's oil consumption is expected to double over the next 25 years from 7.2 million barrels per day to 12.3 barrels per day in 2030. china's natural gas consumption is expected to triple in that period of time from two trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 6.8 trillion cubic feet in 2030. it is reported that in addition to fishing resources, the disputed areas contain oil and natural gas reserves. further, the islands are in

china's pathway as their economy continues to expand. this may be why china ties seeking to cure their maritime territories to secure for their oil and natural gas exploration and to assist in their economic expansion. however, credible reports indicate that china has claimed lands beyond taiwan which points to china's intention of expanding its its expansion ng direct conflict with the interest of its areas. it explains it's behavior to secure their access to energy resources. others strongly believe china's intentions may go further to impose its influence. what is certain, however, that while china appears to be negotiating, we cannot underestimate their appetite for influence. when we are talking about china's track record, china has a history of aggressive actions, which have been the source of

tension in southeast asia. in 1974, china seized the western islands from vietnam. in 1988, they seized the other islands claiming lives. in 2007, china fired upon fishermen, killing one and wouppeding six others. the vietnamese american community has denounced china's claim to the tower ter with no factual basis. china ordered a ban on all vietnamese fishing in the disputed territories until august 1, 2009 and during this ban, 50 fishermen were detained. china's actions impinge on the vietnamese people that support

their livelihood, which is a direct violation of international treaties. china's harassment is not limited to their neighbors. china has engaged in hostile confrontations with u.s. vessels traveling through the disputed area. given these violations, it is time that the united states takes aggressive action against china and hopefully resolve this without resorting to any force. we must pursue a peaceful resolution to this conflict in the south china sea and the united states must take active actions in doing so. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. quigley of illinois. the gentleman from north carolina.

ms. woolsey of california. mr. poe of texas. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. burton of indiana. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. putnam of florida. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. mr. lincoln diaz-balart of florida. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate being recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives. it's always an honor and one of the reasons i try to come down here often and convey the values that eminate from the midwest and hopefully some of the people

across the rest of the country that don't adhere to those values can index with the things we believe in. but what i found out, mr. speaker, is as i traveled around the country that we have a tremendous amount of common values from corner to corner of america and up through the midwest as well. and when i think of the states that i have been to and helping other candidates and trying to convey a message from the northeast to the southeast to the south up through the midwest down to the southwest and off to the west, what i found is that the people that show up, that care about our constitution, the constitutional conservatives, the newly energized tea party groups that are out there, 9/12 groups that are out there, people that care about fiscal responsibility, when they show up, they show up with their american flags and yellow flags,

don't tread on me flags, carry the constitution in their pockets and they know if this country is going to be refurbished and put back together again that we need to go back to the constitution and this congress needs to adhere to our oths to the constitution. we have to ensure that our road map, a road map is not someplace out there in never, never land of progressivism that has always failed. we have a century and a half that we can look at that goes back to the shaping of those ideals and the utopian ideals. we have watched what's happened. they have been at each other's throats. killed each other. their economy and industry has collapsed over and over again and their growth has been slower than ours. we provided them the global defense and enemies to enemies

that are still lined up. the soviet union imploded because ronald reagan was right, he was right because he decided we could press the soviet yube union to the point their economy would collapse before they could build themselves up militarily. we saw the soviet union go down, i thought, now it will be obvious even to the most leftist american that you can't grow and prosper and move onto the 21st century and lead the world economically, culturally, militarily, every measure this there is unless you have a free enterprise system. free enterprise. a simple thing. it's so simple that on the flash cards produced by the united states citizenship immigration services, the services that provide the path for illegal

immigrants to become citizens of the runes, when you are training, when you are studying to become an american citizen, you have to learn about our history and command of the english language and there are a number of questions. and the flash cards that are proposed, flash cards produced by the immigration services, flash cards, red cards about like that, mr. speaker and they will ask questions and questions such as, who is the father of our country and you snap that card over and the answer, i trust, mr. speaker, george washington. another one will be, who emancipated the slaves? and ra ham lincoln. what is the economic system of the united states of america. and flip that flash card and if you study and want to be a sit sin, it says free enterprise capitalism. how about that?

that's one of the questions we consider to be basic, something that any third grade -- they may not know that, but sixth grader will know but should be taught in our schools. the vigor and vitality that comes from that, it is a basic question. if you want to become an american. you have to understand our system, free enterprise capitalism. i wouldn't say that the president doesn't understand the system, but i'm not convinced that he adheres to the free enterprise capitalism system. i have yet to see a single move on the part of the president of the united states, the administration, or the progressive left of this congress, house or senate, that supports the underpinnings of free enterprise capitalism system as the engine of our economy. and i have seen move after move

after move. someone will stand up and say you're wrong, steve king. i'm a free enterprise capital it. you can't say that if you are going to raise taxes to the tune of $1.5 trillion and be part of the $1.5 trillion deficit, a deficit we have never seen in this country and be part of punishing -- they say punishing the rich. what about the job makers, the job givers, the employers in america. what happens when you punish the people that will produce the jobs? what about big employers, big job givers? do we punish them? yes. you are doing that. you are advancing regulations and advancing taxes. you think the goose that lays the golden egg is somehow if you slaughter the goose, you will find those golden eggs inside. well, it doesn't work that way.

it's one egg at a time by the economic engine that is out there struggling to make some profits. and people over on this side of the aisle, i wish somebody would say they created a job, somebody that had invested capital to establish a business that had a chance to make some profit and out of that, you're only as good as the employees that you have and aren't going to make money in business if you don't have good employees. you want to hire the best employees and get the best production and in today's world, it's not good enough to work hard. hard workers are respected, certainly. but this is a technological era. you have to work hard and smart. do both of those things together. if you don't, you will be down in the lowest income levels in america, the underskilled jobs and those folks are the ones

that are receiving public benefits and greater percentages and numbers than anybody else. here's how this works out. and tomorrow morning, mr. speaker, i will have a guest at the conservative opportunity society. it's an organization that was founded in 1984 by weber, gingrich and others, for the purposes of identifying the roots of our prosperity, the conservative opportunities of society. and over the course of the last six years, or 5 1/2, we have had excellent educators and speakers. tomorrow morning it is robert rector of the heritage foundation. he goes in the back room and does that deep due diligence research to come up with the numbers to quantify and identify what is actually happening in america, economically, socially and culturally. he is one of the people that if

you take him out of the equation in 2006 or 2007 that grand coalition of the president and teddy kennedy, president bush and teddy kennedy and others would have passed an amnesty piece of legislation on us. he gave us the facts that showed us the cost of illegal immigration in america. he has done a new study that identifies what is happening with welfare reform in america. and this study goes back and looks at that time in the mid-1990's when this congress went into showdown mode in reform. the government was shut down because the republican majority in the congress refused to knuckle under the demands of president clinton and he demanded they spend more money and demanded we not reform welfare and continue to pay people not to work in the same people not to work in the same numbers as before, because of