the honorable todd, secretary of state, state of indiana, indicating that, according to the unofficial returns of the special election held november 2, 2010, the honorable marlin a stetman was elected representative of congress for the third congressional district state of indiana. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, deborah m. sprig, clerk for lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from indiana, the honorable marlin a. stutman, be able to take the oath of office today. his certificate of election -- the speaker: the gentleman hold for a moment? the house is not in order. will the representative-elect

stutzman and the member of the indiana delegation present themselves in the well? will members please rise? will representative-elect stutzman please raise his right hand? do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, that you will well and safely discharge the duties of the office in which you are about to enter, so help you god? mr. stutzman: i do. the speaker: congratulations.

you are now a member. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. burton: thank you, madam speaker. as dean of the indiana delegation on our side, it's my honor and privilege to introduce our delegation -- our newest member, marlin stutzman. marlin is a fourth generation farmer who grew up on a farm in

howell, indiana. he's the old egs of four children, all of whom worked on the farm at a very young age, and he and his father operate stutzman farm and is owner of stutzman trucking. marlin and his wife, christy, whom my wife has a beautiful voice. said she sang the "star-spangled banner," so we have to use her talents down the road, they have two children, sons peyton after walter payton. and he's part of the indiana right to life as well. he was elected to the indiana state house of representatives at the age of 26. i didn't know there was anybody that young. becoming the youngest member of the indiana legislature. while serving in the indiana house, marlin fought for lower taxes, less regulation and balanced budgets.

he consistently received 90% ratings or above from the chamber of commerce and other small business associations. in 2008 he won an award from the indiana chamber of commerce. in 2008 marlin was elevated or won the seat in the indiana state senate. as dean of the indiana delegation on the republican side, it is my distinct honor and privilege to introduce to the house of representatives mr. stutzman. but, first, i'd like to yield to the senior member from indiana on the democrat side, mr. visclosky. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. burton is dean of the indiana delegation. i would want to show him that respect. but, marlin, i want to add my voice to mr. burton on behalf of all the members of the delegation and all of the members of the house and certainly wish you every success in your endeavor of

public service in serving the people we all try to serve to the best of our ability. welcome you very strongly to the house of representatives. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. burton. mr. burton: it's now my distinct honor to introduce the newest member of the house of representatives, representative marlin stutzman. mr. stutzman: thank you, madam speaker. thank you. it is just a tremendous honor to stand here before you today. it's been very, very humbling, i can say that. your kindness to us. the members we have met so far. i want to introduce my wife, christy, who is up in the gallery.

she has been my most supportive person that we have -- we've done this together as a team, and i can't say enough about her and so proud of her. my father, albert. my mom, sarah are both along. my brothers, my sisters and a lot of other friends and family. but i just want to say thank you. it is such a humbling experience so far. i am proud to serve the people in northwest indiana. i believe we have a wonderful community and to know that i get to serve with the indiana delegation is such a high honor. thank you very much. i look forward to serving you in the upcoming congress.

the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair says in light of the election, the whole number of the house is now 434. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1428 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1428, resolution recognizing brooklyn botanic garden on its 100th anniversary as a preeminent horticultural attraction in the borough of brooklyn and its longstanding commitment to the environment stewardship and education for the city of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house

suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are asked to remove their conversations from the floor. the speaker pro tempore: members will please cease conversations, clear the aisles.

please take your seats. remove conversations from the floor. the speaker pro tempore: members will please cease conversations. please take your seats. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1641. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution

1641, resolution celebrating september 30, 2010, as the 60th anniversary of impact aid. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on house resolution 1641 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. hirono: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i am the sponsor of house resolution 1641, celebrating september 30, 2010, as the 60th anniversary of the impact aid program. hawaii schools received $55.5 million in federal impact aid for fiscal year 2008 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady deserves to be heard. members will please cease

conversations, take seats or remove their conversations from the floor. the house will be in order. ms. hirono: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: members will please cease conversations, take their seats. the house will be in order. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hirono: thank you, mr. speaker. hawaii schools received $55.5 million in federal impact aid for fiscal year 2008 and 2009. the most recent year for which data is available. the majority of public school funding in america comes from local property taxes. unfortunately in school districts where the federal government controls part of the land, districts cannot collect revenues in local property taxes. hawaii, for example, hosts many large u.s. military bases where thousands of our brave men and women and their families live and work. these bases do not generate

property tax revenue to help educate hawaii's military children and all our children in hawaii's schools. in hawaii, as in other states, national parks, federal prisons, indian lands and low rent public housing also decrease the property tax revenues available for schools. left uncorrected, our children and federal -- in federal yim pacted areas would have less funding -- in federally impacted areas would have less funding than their peers with no federal impact. this is unfair. in 1950 congress recognized the need to address this inequity and create an impact aid. the original civil rights education law. impact aid reimburses school districts for the cost of hosting federal property and educating federally connected children. today just as in 1950 we recognize the federal obligation to support high quality education for all children.

no matter what type of land you live on, and especially if your family serves our nation, all our children deserve a high quality education. our impact aid community crosses all partisan and geographic divides. we have the military community, indian land, school districts, urban and rural communities, democratic and republican districts. districts large and small. today impact aid payments support over 11 million children and nearly 1,500 school districts. the need for federal impact aid is especially important now as hawaii and school districts nationwide continue to recover from the greatest recession since the 1930's. impact aid funds come with few strings attached and help districts support a wide range of vital services, including teacher salaries, tutoring, after-school programs,

textbooks, utilities and other local needs. today we celebrate impact aid for advancing education alec which the and recognize that we still have much to do to give all our children a truly world class education. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of house resolution 1641 which celebrates the september 30 as the 60th anniversary of impact aid. the impact aid program, a now title 8 of the elementary and secondary education act of 1965, supports local school districts with concentrations of children who reside on military bases, indian lands, low rent housing units and other federal properties. signed into law in 1950, the

program is an invaluable resource for local school districts across the united states that have lands within their boundaries that are owned by the federal government who have been removed from the local tax rolls by the federal government. these school districts face special challenges. they must provide a quality education to the children living on the indian and other federal lands and meet federal education requirements while sometimes operating with less local revenue as available to other school districts because the federal property is exempt from local property tax. under the program, most impact aid funds are considered general aid to school districts. most school districts use the funds to pay the salaries of teachers and teachers' aides, purchase textbooks, computers and other equipment, fund after-school programs and tutoring, fund advanced placement classes and special enrichment programs. it is the only federal program that is administered locally in

order to meet the needs of students in the classroom. in 2010 nearly $1.3 billion will be provided to 1,484 school districts, enrolling more than one million federally connected children. children of our men and women in uniform, children residing on indian lands, children in low rent housing and children of civilians working or living on federal land. the funding will benefit more than 11 million students who are enrolled in these school districts. mr. speaker, for the last 60 years, the impact aid program has played an important role in ensuring that all students have access and receive a high quality public education. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 1641 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: does the gentlan from pennsylvania have any further speakers? mr. thompson:, no i have no additional speakers so i'll yield back at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: thank you. with that i urge my colleagues to support the resolution and continue to support impact aid which truly represents educational -- equal educational opportunities for mills of childrens a croix our country -- for millions of children across our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii yields back her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1641. 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 and the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1665 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution.

the clerk: house resolution 1665 -- 55, resolution expressing support for designation of october as national farm school month. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, will each control to minutes. the chair recognizes -- 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous materials on house resolution 1655 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. hirono: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hirono: i rise today in support of house resolution 1655, celebrating national farm to school month which was observed in october of this year. farm to school programs bring nutritious products from local farms into the calf fear yass of schools in our doctor -- cafeterias of schools in our area. it improves student nutrition and a link to firsthand

education and agriculture health and nutrition. exceptionally popular with children, farm to school programs operate in over 9,700 schools in hawaii and all 50 site tos. in schools with a farm to school program, there's a 3% to 16% increase in school lunch participation. farm to school programs provide better food options for our kids at school. since 1980 obesity rates in 6 to 11-year-olds have quadrupled and for 12 to 19-year-olds they have tripled according to the centers f disease control. tragically over 1/3 of our children are now obese or overweight. increasing one's consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables is one of six major strategies to prevent and control obesity. studies have demonstrated that children in schools with an active farm to school program increase their average consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables by one or more

servings per day. farm to school programs also have an important educational component. they allow for taste tests of school gardens, composting and farm tours which help children to clearly connect the food that they eat to their bodies, communities and environments. from an economic standpoint, the program helps local family farms and stimulates the local economy, even during these difficult times. farm to school programs help farmers find a local economy for their produce. local farmers receive 60 cents to 70 cents per $1 of the sale price under farm to school, whereas the average intake of a farmer receives from traditional distributors is less than 20 cents per $1. farm to school products which reach the cafeteria are likely less costly to pack and ship and may have a reduced impact on the environment. in hawaii our high cost of land

and remote geography require us to import over 85% of our food. farm to school programs can have a major impact on providing hawaii farmers with an institutional market for their produce and reducing trrpgs costs. i have -- transportation costs. i have had the privilege of visiting farm to to school programs to see their impact firsthand. in august i visited a charter school on hawaii imed. the proud students showed me the school garden, which is integrated into their class lessons. most memorable was watching the worm composting process, which by the way the kids really liked. i again say thank you for the tour to the students, the director of the hawaii charter school networks, school garden instructor and nancy of the

hawaiian school garden network. i also visited the school garden at another school. i'd like to thank them for assisting with the visit. last year i went to a garden party at an elementary school sponsored by a foundation. at the garden party we weeded and mulched the garden for the classrooms. in hawaii it meem means land or earth. the foundation's program stands for actively integrated nutrition and agriculture in schools. the program works to foster healthy eating habits, improve children's health and encourage environmental stewardship. since the inception in 1996, they have made healthy eating a priority in our schools and building strong community connections. for these reasons we celebrated farm-to-school programs this

past october. i appreciate the effort the farm-to-school programs in hawaii and i want to thank representative holt for introducing this resolution and once again appreciate my support for house resolution 1655. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of house resolution 1655, expressing support for the designation of the month of october, 2010, as national farm-to-school month. farm-to-school programs operate in every state and more than 9,700 schools and support community-based food systems. strengthen family farms and improve student health. these programs bring fresh fruits and vegetables to students to help ensure they have access to quality food options and to get their recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables.

ultimately, these programs can help fight to end childhood obesity. farm-to-school supports local businesses, schools involved in farm-to-school programs have consistent customers to food producers and help support farmers in the local community. in fact, every dollar spent, one to three dollars vurned to the community. it benefits both students and local businesses. i urge my colleagues to support designating october as national farm-to-school month. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, is recognized for three minutes. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i thank the gentlelady from hawaii, and i rise in support of house resolution 1655, that i introduced to establish october as national farm-to-school

month. i want to thank the leading co-sponsor, representative betty mccollum of minnesota, and chairman miller, for their help in bringing this to the floor today. it should not be a surprise that i, as a representative of the garden state, support bringing jersey tomatoes and sweet corn into schools. but this is not just a local or provential resolution. farm-to-school programs are a key priority of our agriculture secretary vilsack and first lady michelle obama has planted a garden at the white house with the help of local students to symbolize the good nutrition that comes from fresh foods as well as to educate students about where food comes from. farm-to-school programs can help in the fight -- end the fight against childhood obesity and support our local farmers. these programs also help address the troubling rate of childhood obesity.

currently there are 31 million children who eat school meals five days a week, 180 days a year. while the national school lunch program does a good job feeding these program, the program can provide fresher and healthier food to millions of children in the united states. farm-to-school programs help increase children's daily intake of fresh fruits and vegetables. farm-to-school programs help small and mid-sized agricultural pro dousers by adding -- producers. for every dollar spent on local foods in schools, several dollars circulate in the local economy. while there are presently more than 10,000 farm-to-school programs operational in all 50 states, it's but a fraction of the 94,000 public and nonprofit private -- and nonprivate schools that are operating the

national school lunch program. establishing october as national farm-to-school month would increase awareness and provide the recognition that the existing programs have earned. farm-to-school programs exemplify the best use of federal school lunch dollars. i'm pleased that this legislation that i wrote to provide $40 million in mandatory funding for farm-to-school competitive grants -- competitive grants is included in the pending re-authorization of the child nutrition act on which we will vote soon. i'd like to take a moment that thank megan lott of the community food security coalition and beth, the director of the new jersey farm-to-school effort for their efforts in support of this resolution. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to join us in helping to spread and strengthen the farm-to-school programs across the country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers on this bill so i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: once again, i'd urge all my colleagues to support this resolution and as i mentioned, one of the fun things i got to do in hawaii was to visit the school farm program or agriculture programs and they really do work because the kids definitely do begin to eat their vegetables. with that i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1655 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1715. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1715, resolution congratulating joe paterno on his 400th win as penn state nittany lions football head coach. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on house resolution 1715 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. hirono: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: i rise today in support of house resolution 1715 which congratulates joe paterno for his 400th win as head football coach of the penn state nittany lions.

coach paterno achieved this milestone when on november 6, 2010, when the lions beat out the northwestern wildcats. this victory gave him more career wins than any other coach in ncaa division i-a history. for 60 years, coach paterno served penn state. first as assistant coach for 15 years and then 45 years as head coach. coach paterno has garnered two national championships, seven undefeated seasons, 23 finishes in the top 10 rankings and three big ten conference championships. his 73.6% career winning percentage is second best among all active football bowl subdivision coaches. these tangible accomplishment mirror the accomplishments of paterno's players off the field, which he has facilitated

by bolesering penn state's educational facilities. coach paterno emphasizes the importance of education for all his players. in 2009 the lions had a graduation rate of 89% and graduation success rate of 85%, according to the department of education. the top rate for any college football team that year. he's helped cultivate 15 hall of fame scholar athletes, 44 academic all-americans and 16 ncaa postgraduate scholarship winners. coach paterno is also a winner off the football field. he contributes immensely to the penn state community through charitable donations and volunteering. he and his wife, sue, have personally contributed over $4 million to various departments and colleges within penn state.

many of you may not know that his love for sports extends beyond football. coach paterno and his wife have been adamant supporters of the special olympics, and in fact are in the special olympics hall of fame. he's also the national spokesperson for the sharko marie tooth association, a neurological disorder that affects more than two million people worldwide. paterno uses his star power to encourage donations to this worthy cause. as the honor of be a star gala in 2009, coach paterno raised a record $350,000 for c.m.t. research. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to support this resolution and once again congratulate coach paterno on his 400th win as penn state nittany lions head football coach.

coach paterno has excelled as a well-rounded mentor to young players who continue to translate their skills on the football field to rewarding lives after college. i thank representative thompson for his leadership in bringing this resolution forward and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor a living legend who has walked on the sidelines of penn state football games since 1950. coach joe paterno. to many who watch football, his name is iconic. joe paterno or joe pa, as he's known by many, is forever linked with rolled up caulkies and black shoes and thick, broad-rimmed glasses and uniforms with no names on the back. since starting at penn state as assistant coach in 1950 and

becoming head coach in 1966, other college football programs have seen their coaches come and go. in paterno's tenure at penn state, presidents and congresses have come and gone, dating back to the dwight eisenhower administration. paterno began winning before other coaches on other teams were born. he's turned penn state football into a powerhouse program, one of seven football programs in history to have more than 800 wins. but what makes joe paterno so different and well respected by his fellow coaches, players and fans is the manner in which he led and built the program. paterno emphasized his success with honor on and off the field. when he asked what the milestone meant for joe, his wife, sue, said that the milestones were not important to the penn state coach but rather the most important thing to joe was to, quote, the young men you develop.

under joe paterno, penn state has had one of the highest graduation rates in college football. in 2009 the graduation rate was 89%, the highest percentage in the top 25. he's had 25 hall of fame scholar athletes, 30 first team all-americans with 44 overall, and 18 ncaa postgraduate scholarship winners. joe paterno has donated millions of his own money back to the penn state university and helped raise millions of more for scholarships and libraries, one is named the paterno libraryy. -- library. and he's part of the c.m.t. organization. today we recognize his 400th win. you now has the most wins in

division 1-a subdivision history. he passed bear bryant and bobby bowden, both of whom paterno called friends. there's a saying, "we are penn state." as an alumni i've heard it echo on the field. what this coach has done for one program, thousands of coaches in the sport altogether has resonated throughout the country. joe paterno is penn state. joe paterno is college football. i urge my colleagues to commend joe paterno on this milestone by supporting this resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: does the gentleman from pennsylvania have any other speakers? mr. thompson: i do not so i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: it's clear that a coach is not only an exemplary coach but he's an exemplary

human being and a model to us all. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1715. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. thompson: mr. speaker. i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: 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. the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 86 rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 329. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent

resolution 329. concurrent resolution recognizing the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the education for all handicapped children act of 1975. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii and the gentleman from pennsylvania will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on house concurrent resolution 329 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. hirono: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house concurrent resolution 329 which recognizes the 35th anniversary of the education for all handicapped children act of 1975, later renamed the individuals with disabilities education act. this historic statute guarantees

that all children, regardless of the nature of their disability, have the right to a free appropriate public education. prior to i.d.a., many children with disabilities were placed in segregated institutions with no expectation for success. as a result of i.d.a., children with disabilities have been increasingly included in general education settings and have had the opportunity to receive the same education as their nondisabled peers. over the years, the original bill has been amended several times to bolster educational opportunities for children with disabilities. an amendment in 1986 created preschool grad programs for children ages 3 to 5 and early intervention programs for those under the age of 3. in 1997, idea was again amended to ensure that students with disabilities have access to a general education curriculum and are fully included in state

assessments. in 2004 all students with disabilities were guaranteed to receive an education that considers their transition to higher education, employment and independent living. currently idea serves about 350,000 infants and toddlers, 700,000 preschoolers and 5.9 million children ages 6 through 21. in hawaii nearly 18,000 students receive idea services in greats k through 12. since the enactment of idea, the number of students with disabilities graduated from high school with a regular paloma and enrolling in college has increased dramatically. however, we still face challenges in providing a free and appropriate education to children with disabilities. and student outcomes remain too low. as we celebrate the successes of idea, we must continue to

improve free and appropriate education for students with disabilities. we must ensure that all students are held to high expectations and have the opportunity to succeed. mr. speaker, i would like to thank my fellow members for co-sponsoring this legislation and again express my support for house concurrent resolution 329 which extends, recognizes the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the education for all handicapped children act of 1975, also known as the individuals with disabilities education act. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania voiced. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of house res. -- concurrent resolution 329.

which recognizes the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the individuals with disabilities education act or idea. 35 years ago president gerald ford signed the education for all handicapped children act into law. this historic legislation now known as the individuals with disabilities education act was a major milestone in the quest to end the chronic exclusion and miseducation of students with exceptional needs. more than any other law to date, this legislation helped open the door to fairness and access for millions of children with disabilities and paved the way to greater educational access. as recent as 40 years ago most states excluded students with disabilities from public schools. all that began to change in 1971 . in parc vs. pennsylvania, a class action lawsuit filed in my state, the u.s. district court ruled for the first time that the state had a legal gue dewity to educate students with

intellectual disabilities and that the u.s. constitution guarantees of equal protection and due process to prevent schools from cluding disabled children solely based on the basis of their disabilities. this monumental decision was followed by similar decisions in 27 states and the district of columbia. during this time and shortly thereafter, congress amended the act to include funds for the education of disabled children and created a bureau of education for the handicapped within the u.s. office of education. it also boosted funding for states under the education for the handicapped act of 1970 and required states to detail their plans for achieving the goal of full educational opportunities for disabled students. it also passed section 504, the rehabilitation act of 1973, which grant specific protection to disabled students. but it wasn't until 1975, wth the passage of the education for all handicapped children act, that states and school districts were required to provide a free

appropriate public education to students with disabilities. under the law, each child must have an individualized education program or i.e.p. that details the range of services to be provided and where students' education is to take placeworks a heavy preference for the mainstreaming of disabled children wherever possible. the law also mandates that districts establish procedures for ensuring that parents are involved in the development of each i.e.p. and they have a voice in the district's decisions about the range of services it will provide. in 2004 congress passed the individuals with disabilities education improvement act to re-authorize the law. during this latest renewal we worked to strengthen the focus onacademic achievement through the development of the child's i.e.p., gave parents more control over the education of their children, fostered better communication between parents and school district officials and supported high quality special education teachers. while there is still much work

that remains, including meeting the federal commilt -- commitment to provide 40% of the excess cost of educating children with disabilities, there is no doubt that idea has been an important part in assuring the students with disabilities are able to become full and productive members of society. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support house concurrent resolution 326 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: does the gentleman from pennsylvania have any further speakers? mr. thompson: i do not so i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from hawaii -- the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: once again i urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 329. 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 concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection -- ms. hirono: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: 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. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislation and any legislati business and any special orders heretofore entered into, follow thing members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. smith from new jersey for today, mr. jones for november 17 and 18. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house

for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. mr. sherman, mr. defazio, ms. kaptur, ms. woolsey and mr. grayson. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. burton of indiana. mr. sherman, california. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request permission to take mr. burton's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. poe: mr. speaker, i recently got a letter from a grieving family in florida. their young 21-year-old son was killed three years ago in a senseless homicide by an illegal. the family is still seeking justice, however. this is their son's story. on august 15, 2007, branden randolph michael was on his way to a lunch break. this is brandon's photograph right here. he was driving to the credit union to cash his payroll check. his vehicle was struck by a car driven by a twice deported illegal named mario telez. brandon's car sflipped over several mes and landed on its

hood. brandon was thrown into a ditch. the illegal, the driver, mario telez, got out of his vehicle and calmly sat on the curb. he did nothing to help brandon, he did not call for aid, he did nothing but watch brandon struggle when he took his last breath. telez refused to admit he was driving the vehicle and brandon's family had to go through a lengthy trial. brandon's family found out that telez had been in this country illegally for seven years. he was working and sending his money back to mexico. even after having already been deported two times. it took a jury only 20 minutes to find him guilty of driving without a license and causing the death of another person. that being brandon. the defendant was sentenced to only two years in the penitentiary, two years for taking the life of another individual.

telez has now served the two years for murdering brandon michael and upon release he was deported yet again. but here's the rest of the story. telez's friend, a richard curtis, admitted during the trial that he harbored the illegal fugitive for years. and hid him out. and curtis was never prosecuted. it was richard curtis' automobile that mario telez was driving when he killed brandon michael. curtis works for the federal government and get this, he worked for the i.r.s. don't the laws apply to federal bratsed a o'as well as other people in this country? so the f.t.a. family asked the florida's state attorney office to enforce the law. the family is asking them to charge richard curtis with harboring, aiding and abetting an illegal fugitive in this country. but no one has prosecuted this apparent law breaker and why not? no one seems to be talking.

brandon's family deserves some answers. brandon's parents, mr. and mrs. robert michael, wanted me to know how precious their son brandon was to them. and here's what they said about him. they said he was fun person to be around. he loved life, he celebrated with people and he was seldom ever sad. he made others happy. he was looking forward to getting married and starting a family and he was a dallas cowboys fan. he played the keyboard and he played several different sports growing up, from t-ball as a small child to football in high school. he grew up in a loving middle class family that raised him to respect people and respect the law. he loved giving to those who had less than him. he gave food to the hungry. he asked his friends for blankets, coats, and shoes to give to the needy in his area. he and his sister for pages for the local city council meeting.

he worked hard for the car he was driving on the dreadful day he was killed by a person illegally in this country he loved animals and wanted to be a veterinarian. th is a real american family suffering real consequences because of lax immigration and border enforcement laws in this country. brandon's life was cut short by a twice-deported illegal who should not been in the -- have been in the country in the first place. his family is a close-knit group who said they worked hard to raise children who loved the lord, loved others, and loved this country. the family said other things. the father, richard, defended the country for 20 years but they feel as if the country turned a deaf ear on their plight and situation. our government officials seem to have turned their backs on this case and brandon's death. time to enforce the laws in this country is now.

they asked ask me how many american children such as their precious son have to be killed at the hands of illegal before our government gets serious about enforcing the laws of the land. they said, quote, we cannot afford to ignore this enormous problem any longer. we don't want another family to endure what we've been through and are still going through. mr. speaker, brandon randolph michael is worth the fight to get it right in this country to enforce the laws that we have to prosecute the guilty, to deport criminal aliens and secure the borders because it is a national security issue to protect the lives of people like this. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> to address the house.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is are recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, every minute, three people are diagnosed with diabetes. every day, almost 300 people undergo an amputation because of the disease, 50 people go blind and 130 people enter end stage kidney disease programs. one in three children will face a future with diabetes. that's one of the most frightening statistics i've read in a long time. the disease is at nearly epidemic proportions with 120 million adults living with the disease and another 57 million americans living with prediabetic conditions. what's the cost of this epidemic? almost one in every five health care dollars is attributed to caring for someone with diabetes. just in my district in pennsylvania a 2007 estimate says it costs more than $323

million. nationwide, the price tag is $218 billion and climbing. but that figure includes complications from undiagnosed diabetes, prediabetic and gestational diabetes. november is national diabetes awareness month -- as american diabetes month. i encourage americans to visit diabetes.org to learn about the abc's of diabetes and keeping it under control. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: last week, the co-chairs of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform released their draft proposal. i don't agree with all their recommendations but i'm encouraged to see that they

believe wasteful pentagon spending can and must be a prime target. for year, i've been calling for substantial cuts in the kinds of defense systems and programs many of them left from relics from the cold war, that are doing absolutely nothing for modern day military preparedness. the congressional progressive caucus has outlined specific cuts totaling more than $600 billion. i'm pleased, for example, that the commission chairs are content for the v-22 osprey, which is notorious for cost overruns and safety problems that have led to the accidental deaths of 30 service members. billions of dollars over budget for a weapons system that's killing our own people. not a good deal, not a good deal for the tax payers, to say the least. likewise, i'm inclined to support the commission's proposal to eliminate 1/3 of

overseas military bases. i agree it's time too pull the plug on the marine corps' expeditionary fighting vehicles. which breaks down every eight hours on an average and doesn't steer well tpwhel water. on the other hand, i don't agree with the commission that any kind of salary freeze is the way to go. the last thing we should do is take out our fiscal woes on the men and women, civilian or uniformed, combat or noncombat, charged with protecting the couldn't arery. my hope instead is that this body will consider some of the other congressional progressive caucus are recommendations. for example, has our military defense system really justified its enormous expense? and what about the nuclear weapons stockpile? we could save $15 billion by recusing the number of warheads to 1,000 which is still enough,

mr. speaker to blow up the world many, many times over. there's been much noise made on the other side of the aisle about the size of government and supposedly, out of control federal spending. but many of the same folks using those talking points haven't exactly shown great restraint when it comes to defense budgets. so i'll be curious to see when they take over the majority in january, will they move to cut loaded defense -- bloated defense programs or does their zeile for spending cuts extend only to those domestic programs that are helping struggling families get through a recession. the bottom line, mr. speaker, is this. you are not serious about closing the deficit unless you're prepared to put military spending on the table. by recommending specific cutbacks on the defense side, the deficit commission has at least started the conversation. of course, the commission

doesn't really address the elephant in the room, the ongoing war in afghanistan and our continued mill care -- military commitment in iraq. their cost has exceeded $1 trillion over the last decade, and what have we gotten for the expense? a foreign policy blunder of epic proportions, one that has cost thousands of americans their lives, without truly stabilizing the countries we invoided, without combating terrorism in a meaningful way, without advancing our national security interests. fiscal responsibility, mr. speaker, an enormous cost savings, yet one more reason to bring our troops home and bring them home now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. garrett of new jersey. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

speak for five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. diaz-balart: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i will leave congress at the end of this session with a sense of duty fulfilled. having given my all to the people the 21st district of florida who have honored me by electing me and re-electing me to nine terms in congress cook. -- in congress. i feel deep satisfaction not only in the achievement of my term of service, such as the codification into law of the u.s. embargo on the cuban tyranny, requiring the liberation of all political prisoners without exceptions and the scheduling of free and fair multiparty elections in cuba before the president of the united states can lift u.s. sanctions. or the nick rag juan adjustment and -- nicaraguan adjustment and central american relief act which granted relief to hundreds of thousands of our central american brothers and

sisters previously facing deportation. my most profound satisfaction comes from having given my all each and every day to my constituents. as a private citizen, i'll work to help the freedom fighters inside cuba who are resisting the brutality of the castro tyranny with ultimate courage and patriotism. they are my heroes. askew ban political prison her angel moya wrote from his dungeon in the castro cuban gulag, and i quote, my sit spirit -- my spirit is the same, it is in joy because i fight for the rights of the cuban people. i am ready to continue resisting physically, morally and spiritually. end quote. mr. speaker, i will continue to do all in my power to help in the struggle for the freedom of cuba. this couldn't arery, the united states of america, is a

miracle. a miracle of generosity of spirit. a miracle of freedom. of human dignity. and opportunity. may god forever preserve and protect this great land and people. for the rest of my days, i will feel deeply honored to have been a member of the congress of the united states of america. to all of my colleagues, those who have helped me and those who have opposed me, thank you. thank you for the honor of having been able to serve along with you. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. paul of texas.

mr. moran of kansas. mr. grayson of florida. mr. smith of new jersey. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess is are recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker for the recognition. i want to do what i do often which is come to the floor of this house and talk to my colleagues on both sides about the issues that remain in health care, this congress as it winds down in its last days has certainly seen and done some dramatic work and has seen some dramatic pushback by the american people on some of the work that's been done. so i thought it might be useful as we wind up this last part of the 111th congress, the congress that will forever go down in history as that which has fundamentally changed the

way every man, woman, and child in this country receives and will receive health care for the next several generations, i thought it appropriate to talk about how we got to where we are and what i see over the horizon, what's likely to occur in the next congress that convenes in the early part of january. certainly, when you look through -- look at the history written by this congress, starting off with all the bright prospects in early 2009, january 2009, and even going back a few months before that i honestly thought that the health care bill that would see the light of day in this house would be something that would be written by the senate finance committee before this congress was ever sworn in. i was frankly surprised when the congress was sworn in and in fact inauguration day came and went and there was no introduction of a health care bill. we all remember that there was a former senate majority leader

who was asked to be the sec are retear of health and human services, but that nomination got derailed by some tax difficulties and then that post remained vacant for several months and during that hiatus, no health care bill came to the floor of the house. it really wasn't until senators kennedy and baucus in early june of 2009 road wrote a letter to the president and said, we will, in fact, introduce our health care bill through our committee, that the country got a glimpse as to what was in store for this fundamental restructuring of health care that had been promised by the new administration. the health care bill that came through the senate health education labor and pensions committee in june of 2009 was originally scored by the congressional budget office as costing over $1 trillion and providing insurance for an additional 13 million people. wait a minute. we were told there were 37 million people unemployed -- uninsured, 13 million is

son-in-law a third of that. is that all we get for our trillion dollars? then after that congressional budget office report, really all of the discussion for almost the rest of that year became all about cost and coverage numbers, and no bill was introduced without a c.b.o. -- congressional budget office -- score to say what the cost and coverage numbers were going to be, so in fact the senate finance committee did not introduce a bill until much later in the year 2009. 2009. in the summer of 2009, house committees, committee on education and labor, committee on ways and means, all three at the same time introduced a health-care bill that was large in volume and contained a lot of government control in the lives of every ordinary american. women were concerned when they saw that bill in 2009, but every

committee reported it out with some amendments by the end of july of 2009. which took us to the august recess and august recess of 2009 is something i suspect no member who was serving in this body on either side of the aisle will ever forget from summer town halls, in august of 2009, when people showed up in numbers that were absolutely unprecedented for town halls at least in my experience and were concerned about the direction that congress was taking with this restructuring of the nation's health care and didn't like it and wanted to tell us so. i had an advantage in my summer town halls in summer of 2009, having voted against the bill as it left my committee of energy and commerce late in the evening of july 31, before coming home for the august recess, i can honestly say i voted against the bill in committee and would oppose it when it came to the floor because in my opinion, it

was a terribly flawed product. but during the course of the month of august, we heard over and over again from people who were concerned about the direction that congress was taking and they didn't tell us that some reform was not necessary, what they told us what, you are making us uncomfortable with this approach that changes everything fundamentally about how health care is delivered in this country. some were ok with the way health care was being administered and didn't want to see it changed and yes, there were people who had problems, there were problems with pre-existing conditions and people who lacked the ability to get insurance. but what the country told us during the summer town halls was that we would like you to work on that and not restructure the whole health kir system that the rest of us are depending upon to get our health care.

the other thing we were told is, is there a way to bring in costs, way to help us with the cost of health care in the future because we are concerned about the rapidly escalating price of health care and whether it will price us out of the market. those were two things, don't disrupt the system today and it was ignored by the united states congress as it went through the process. i thought after the very contentious summer town halls that congress would come back to town in september of 2009 and maybe hit the pause button or rewind button or at least the stop button for a short period of time and recalibrate this. clearly, a big long 1,000-page bill upset a lot of people. is there a way to do this in a more reasonable fashion, tackling some of those things that people said they wanted to

see fixed, equal treatment in the tax code, things like insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, buying insurance across state lines, reforming the justice system and maybe we could do some good and show value. but again, it was not to be. the president of the united states came here to the well of the house and gave us a long discussion about the health care process in the bill and how it was going to go forward. at no time did i hear that maybe we ought to stop for a short period of time and listen to what the august town halls were telling us. it was full speed ahead. and later on in that fall, and early november of 2009, this house passed the bill. it came through the three committees. it was 1,000-paged bill when it left the committees and

2,000-paged bill when it came to the floor, presumably with a fair amount of input from the administration as to the writing of this bill. it came to the floor of the house. passed the floor of the house by the slimmest of margins and off to the senate. a funny thing happened in november and december last year. the senate -- the other body did not just take up our health care bill and bring it back to a conference committee. the other body started with a new bill. it was a house bill and had a house bill number, 3590, that had previously passed the house as a housing bill. but the senate did not take up our health care bill but took up a housing bill and stripped out the housing bill and inserted the health-care language so that what passed on christmas eve, just ahead of a big snowstorm that was headed to town, was h.r. 3590 that started as a

housing bill and ended like a health care bill. in the process of getting there, it did upset and people were genuinely disquieted by the process they saw. what will it take to get to the 60 votes. what will it take to get your vote, senator. and we saw the very things, nebraska kickbacks, louisiana purchase, and all these special deals that were required to get the votes in the senate. the american people said if this bill is so great, why are they having to really encourage senators to vote in favor of it? the bill passed on christmas eve. the normal process would have been to convene some type of use-senate conference to work out the differences between the two. but early in january of 2010, a special election was held up in

the state of massachusetts to fill the senate seat that had been previously occupied by senator kennedy and a republican won the seat and that was a disruption to the process that many people in the senate, in the other body said, there's no way we can get the 60 votes on a conference report. we are going to have to take the bill as it passed here. and it was possible to do that, because remember, the senate passed a bill that had previously passed the house. it passed the house as a housing bill. went over to the senate and became a health care bill and now it could come back to the house and will the house concur with the senate amendment to h.r. 3590? and if the house concurs with a simple 218 majority, then that bill gets on the fast track to the east room of the white house for a signing ceremony. when that subject was first approached, the speaker of the

house at the time said that there weren't 100 votes in the house for the senate-passed bill. and i think she was right about that. but somehow, during the months of january, february and three weeks into march, enough individuals in this house were convinced to vote for the health care bill and it was passed the third week of march of this year. now, it was a deeply unpopular bill when it passed. it never gained in popularity. and two weeks ago, we saw the result of that with the mid-term election, when so many incumbent democrats who voted in favor, in fact some who voted against the bill, that allowed the bill to come to the floor, found they were not successful in their re-election efforts. wave elections happen. republicans were on that end in 2006. but this one seemed to be tied

to the health care bill. why was this so deeply unpopular? certainly people around the country said the system is not functioning as we would like. you would think we would welcome the appearance of a house and senate bill. but here's the problem. there are many things in the bill that were seen as a vast overreach of the federal government. the individual mandate requiring every man, woman and child to purchase insurance whether they wanted it or not and use the commerce clause as justification for doing that really struck a lot of people as going too far. really, the first time that the united states government is saying that we can require you to purchase a product, in this case, health insurance, and the reason we can do that is so we can regulate insurance under the commerce clause. apply it to other products and you see the danger of that argument.

what if it's an aunl? a certain type of appliance. how can the federal government insert itself in the lives of americans to that degree? we heard previous speakers talk about how great this country is and how great the united states congress is. remember, american exceptionalism comes from the fact that over 200 years ago, our founders got together and said there ought to be a way that the people can be -- see the necessary functions of government occur, but only with their consent, government by the consent of the governed. it was a novel approach. that the founders when they wrote the declaration of independence said our rights come from the creator, not from our government. they come from the creator to the individual. they are gin alienable and can't be taken away and the individual alone to be governed by the government.

the government is dictating to the individual, you have to buy a certain type of health insurance policy that we are going to designate and we have to tell you what it is going to cover and not what it's going to cover and many people said, you know that's just more than i ever believed that my government would do. government with the consent of the governed. it is a novel concept in the field of human endeavor and that notion seemed to be turned on its head with the passage of this health care law. that is one of the fundamental reasons there has been such an intense rejection across the country of the concept of the bill that was signed into law by president obama last march. almost a year ago, president obama told charles gibson if we don't pass health reform, here's the guarantee, your premiums will go up.

your employers are going to load up more costs on you, the individual buying health insurance. potentially, they will drop your coverage because they can't afford these increases. that was one of the things the president used to push the health-care reform. what is happening now? in my district, during the month of october, prior to the election, people saying, look, you have to do something. the cost of insurance since you passed this bill, the cost of insurance is going up so rapidly, 10%, 20%, some cases 30% or more, that i cannot keep up with the costs and i'm looking to drop coverage for my employees. and then, the fines that will result in a few years when those kick in, employers are concerned about where this is all going. now, you do hear the discussion that perhaps the cost of insurance is going up just because the insurers are trying

to take advantage of the situation before more of these regulations and controls come on-line. maybe that's true. or is it because the insurers are having to meet more of the mandates that were put out under the health-care law. maybe that's true. how would we know the difference? we could do a hearing and my committee might be a good place to do a hearing and ask those questions, but we didn't do that. my committee has had no hearings on the implementation of this health care law since it was passed in march of this year. my committee, the committee on emergency and commerce has a rich tradition of providing oversight for the federal agencies. health and human services is one of those agencies. the center for medicare and medicaid services is one of those agencies. why have we not had a hearing on the implementation of the health-care law? i can only speculate. but it has not been good for

swints or health insurance companies and no one knows what is expected of them but people know they were promised if it was passed, we would not see our premiums go up. and if we didn't pass it, the premiums would not go up. but we passed the law and premiums have gone up in a big way. disjointed and poisonous the process was. remember during the presidential campaign, as the president talked about this as a campaign issue, that all of these negotiations would be opened and covered on c-span and have everyone around a big table and said we would get bored watching it and it would be out in the open. and the process went behind closed doors for months and the reality was there was no transparency to this process. it was, again, a violation of one of those fundamental things. people thought they could trust

the incoming administration to be transparent in this regard, and they got anything but transparency. in my committee of energy and commerce, i filed a resolution of inquiry, to get information from six groups that met down at the white house in may of 2009, who were the six groups? the doctors were one, hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers also were included, pharmaceutical companies were included and service employees international union was included. that meeting occurred in may of 2009. they came out of the meeting and said, we've got $2 trillion of savings in the health care system that will help pay for this health care reform. so we've done a good job. i began to ask the white house for some of the information about where this $2 trillion in savings, where it was going to occur who gave up what, who promised what, who was promised

what and never could get anything more than copies of a press release here or copies of a webpage there, stuff that was generally available in the -- through the open source but never any of the details on these meetings, never any emails between participants, so in december of last year, i filed a resolution of inquiry which is one of the few tools you have in the minority to get information when the administration is not forthcoming. this resolution of inquiry must come up for a vote in committee within a certain period of -- period of time a certain number of legislative days or it comes to the floor of the house as a privileged resolution. obviously the majority does not want that to happen. indeed, in fact, ironically, the same day of the state of the union address was delivered in january of this year, we had a meeting of the committee of energy and commerce to consider my resolution of inquiry and in

fact to his credit, chairman waxman agreed with some of many of the things for which i was asking, and said we should have copies of those documents. he would not agree ore port out favorably the resolution of inquiry but agreed to write a letter with ranking member barton to ask the white house to provide this information. that was 11 months ago and i am still waiting for that information, it has yet to be forthcoming. it's important stuff. i realize that much time has passed since then. but look at one of the things we're going to talk about in just a moment is the problems that america's seniors and america's doctors have because of the pay formula under medicare, under the sustainable growth formula. there's a large cost associated with fixing that problem. if money was given up in the

health care bill, why not have some of it be given up as a down payment on fixing that problem with a sustainable growth rate program. indeed, at some point over $400 billion other the 10-year budgetary psychle is removed from medicare to pay for the -- budgetary cycle is removed from medicare to pay for the entitlements, helping people purchase insurance in the exchanges set up in 2014. but the problem is, you took all that money out of medicare and didn't get a down payment, not even a down payment on resolving the problem with the sustainable growth rate formula. i really would like to see what occurred in those meetings and what the discussion was. surely the sustainable growth rate formula came up, any time you get two doctors together, that's almost all they can talk about. around that table was this not part of the discussion?

the service employees international union, what did they gave up? or what did they get? did they get more than they gave up? again, we don't know these facts, so we are left to only suppose or wonder what occurred and what transpired in that meeting, it should not have been necessary to file the resolution of inquiry in the first place because this administration came into office saying they were going to be the most transparent administration in histo and that all these health care negotiations would be open and on crmbing span for all to see and yet at the same time i had to file the are resolution as would be expected, the committee, and democrats hold a vast majority on the committee right now, that's going to change after the first of the year but the resolution would never be reported out favorably but the chairman did sign a letter for me to get information but unfortunately that information has not been forthcoming and at this point it's difficult to force the

administration to do anything they're not inclined to do when you're still in the minority. again that will change within a period of weeks, i'm very glad about that and certainly this is an issue i intend to continue to -- intend to continue to pursue. one of the things that's come up in the past couple of days, and we'll talk about it a -- about it a little bit more, but the issue of waivers, starting maybe the last week or so in october, where very famously the mcdonald's corporation got a health care waiver if the health care law for a period of a year and then in rapid succession, many more companies were given waivers and now i think that number stands at over 100 last time i checked on health care.gov. -- on healthcare.gov. where do these waivers come from? why are they necessary? who is giving them? who is getting them? who is not getting them? what are the rule the parameters by which the waivers

are established? if the health care bill, health care law, was so wisely crafted and carefully put together as we heard over and over again on the floor of this house, why is it now necessary to give companies waivers? when i have companies call my office back home and say, i saw where a company got a waiver for that health care law. i'd like one of those too. how can i go about getting one? right now, again, the process is anything put transparent and no one really knows how to advise companies to do that. i suspect we'll see a great many more waivers given as the months go by as more companies become -- have greater awareness about this. again, remember, one of the things the president said if we don't do what he said we had to do in this health care law, the premium prices would go up so much that employers were going to drop coverage. yet shortly after the bill was signed, documents received from several large companies said we'll have to restate our

earnings now because of the passage of the health care law. the chairman of my committee, henry waxman, sent out requests for information to all these companies to say, how dare you try to embarrass the president on the day the bill is signed. we want to see what you're referring to when you say you have to restate earnings. turns out that's to comply with securities and exchange commission regulations that if the company's profits are going to substantially change, they are required to let people know about that but part of the information that was delivered to the committee showed that large companies across the country were at least considering what the future holds for them. when companies have a couple hundred thousand employees, they're paying $8,000 to $10,000 per employee for health insurance, on the ore side if they don't provide the health insurance, which they don't, under law, or they're going to get fined $2,000. the policy costs $8,000 to

$10,000, the fine is $2,000. companies with large numbers of employees were suddenly looking at significant savings that could be available to that company and now were they obligated to do the correct thing from a fiduciary standpoint and opt out of providing employer-sponsored insurance and let employees by insurance in the state exchanges which have yet to be set up and as a consequence only pay the fine rather than the $8,000 to $10,000 premium. clearly some companies thought about the implications of this. to my -- to the best of my knowledge, no company has said yet this is what weir going to do or what is going to happen but if one company makes that decision, companies with a very business model are likely going to have to consider the same trajectory because they have to compete in the same marketplace as the first company who has now allowed their employees to go into the exchange. it is a big deal and it is

affecting the ability for employers to provide health insurance and the cost has done anything but go down. be concerned about what's going top in medicare and medicaid. but let's pick on medicare for a moment. here we are in the waning hours of the 111th congress. we're in the so-called lame duck period after the election before the new congress is sworn in. this congress limps through the remainder of its congressional term, one of the things we have to do, one of the things we have to do is what's perennially been known as the doc fix. it's an adjustment to sustainable growth rate formula that allows doctors to be appropriately reimbursed for seeing medicare patients and providing medical care to medicare patients.

why is that important? if they're not appropriately reimbursed they can't afford to keep their doors open they drop out of the medicare program and patients can't find doctors and complain to their congressmen. this is something that's historically happened. but as a consequence of multiple times doing this fix, the cost has now gotten so high that it becomes very difficult for congress to pass that legislation and maybe i could just take you through a few of the simple steps that occur in this process as to why -- why this is so difficult. here is a formula reprinted from the website for the center for medicare and medicaid

services, calculation of the payment formula under the physician fee schedule. here's the payment formula. bracket rvu -- bracket rvu times gpci plus rvu -- that's starts to look complicated. if you look at the key for the acronyms you get an idea of what this is trying to do. rvuw, relative value unit for work. rvu relative value unit determined by a -- an agency, not by the doctor's office, it's going to be modified by a geographic practice cost index for that value unit of work and then every value unit of work is further going to be modified by another constant for practice expenses as well as

some geographic consideration. another based on the subscript for buying liability insurance. and then at the end, it's all kinds of conversion -- all times a conversion factor this looks complicated but again, you could muddle through that. but unfortunately, what we don't really get is what is the conversion factor. let's take us through that just a little bit as well. so on another page on the seb scythe -- website for the center for medicare and medicaid services is calculation of the conversion factor. you have the conversion factor for the current year, equal to the conversion factor for a prior year plus an update. well, how do you get the update? come down here, this is how you calculate the update. one plus medicare economic

index over 100 times one plus -- wait a minute, what's u.a.f.? oh, down here, update adjustment factor. how do you calculate the update adjustment factor? going to another page on the c.m.s. website is how you calculate the update adjustment factor. and a lot of calculations here, but what becomes significant is that you actually have to go back in time over 10 years and recapture the savings that should have occurred had the formula been allowed to take effect and that is the problem with repealing what's called the sustainable growth rate formula. congress in june passed a temporary patch that took us to november 30 of this year and we

have to do something by november 30 to postpone this update which is actually a reduction, almost a 30% reduction in physician reimbursement. patients are clamoring for us to do this they say it's an access issue to get in to see our doctors and it has to be fixed. this has been the worst year i have seen in my brief tenure in congress. we let it expire in april. we allowed it to expire in june. and now we're two weeks away from another expiration date. what do i mean when i say we let it expire? congress was coming up against the congressional recess, easter recess, and for whatever reason could not get the so-called doc fix or the postponement of the s.g.r. formula, we were not able to get that passed.

as a consequence, we went home, congress adjourned for easter recess with the doctors having no resolution with a deadline of march 31 passing. well, ok, no problem, we'll just ask the center for medicare and medicaid service to hold those reimbursement checks until congress gets back to town in two weeks and fixes that problem so that when the checks go out there will not be a -- there will not be a reduction on those checks. well, i just got to tell you if you are in a small physician office and i would characterize it as being two, three, four, five, even six. and only 15% of your business is medicare business, you cut 15% off the operating capital of a four, five, six-physician office, that's a big deal. that's going to make it

difficult for cash flow for that month. in a doctor's office, if you don't cash flow, you still have to pay the light bill and the cost of your supplies and still have to pay your help and taxes, so you aren't paying yourself that month. and that happened in small and medium-sized physician offices across the country. when congress came back and passed the fix, it was only for a couple months' time. june 1, the same darn thing happens. and as a consequence, we are up against another recess and the same thing repeats itself. and the center for medicaid and medicare services holds checks and practices said here we go again. we just barely recover from this last one and now we have another one where they're holding a porg of our cash flow up -- holding a portion of our cash flow up for

another month. in june, there was a six-month extension passed and covered us to november 30. bear in mind, congress is very close to adjourning for the end of the year. are we going to get this problem taken care of this week? pretty hard to see how we do. leadership elections going on, got to elect a new speaker of the house, committee chairs have to be selected. so this week is taken up with a lot of institutional stuff. we are doing suspension bills on the floor, but i haven't seen or heard any language for doing something to at least forestall this cut. if it doesn't happen by november 30, december, as you can imagine is a tough month to get things done. what if those checks are held? it's a bad deal, because of the holidays coming up, but also, in addition to those physician

offices that are now in a cash crunch, they are trying to do their tax planning for the end of the year and trying to do their purchases for the end of the year and do planning for the next year and we aren't allowing them the ability to do that because they have been burnt twice already by the united states congress, burnt twice this year. that's unprecedented and fixing to be burnt for a third time and physicians' offices are taking a hard look and saying do i want to continue to participate in the medicare system if i'm under this threat and what happens if we don't do this? if we don't do this, the across-the-board cut for medicare patients is some 30%. now, what in the doctor's office has gone down? what purchase does the doctor make to keep his office going?

has the cost of electricity gone down? has the cost of rent gone down by 30%? has the cost of paying labor gone down by 30%? i don't think so. if you are in a practice that is fortunate enough to be thinking about expanding and go down to your friendly banker and say, i would like to perhaps borrow some money and i would like to add some exam rooms and add some jobs in my community, in my medical practice and the banker looks at this and says, you are going to be earning 30% less for this book of business after the first of the year? are you crazy? there is no way in the world in this banking environment that i'm going to loan money to a doctor's office. we have put our practicing physicians in a tight, tight place by our inability to deal with this problem. now, should a doc fix occur and

what will it look like? the administration said they want one for 13 months. that allows us time to get into the next congress and come up with a way to replace this formula with something that makes sense. and i would be very much in favor of that. relateicically, it costs over $1 billion so a $13 billion price tag. maybe it's doable. i don't know. perhaps we could could take some unspent stimulus funds and reprogram that to this. perhaps there are other savings we could do away with new parts of the health care bill that are expensive and offset the cost. i would be interested in looking at those proposals. what's more likely to happen, we'll bump it right up against the deadline and then some. and then do a one or two-month fix and dump it into the

beginning of the next congress. and again, that's ok. i expect that to happen. ultimately -- ultimately this formula is unworkable and this formula needs to be replaced and this formula with all of its conversion factors and update adjustment factors needs to be removed and a simpler and more straightforward way of reimbursing the nation's physicians who agree to take care of our medicare patients. arguably our sickest patients who take the most amount of time in an office practice, we have to find a way to do this better. i think in the next congress, we will see some serious activity getting that done. i have heard the incoming leadership talk about how this is an important part of what the

next congress does and they want to see it taken care of. a lot of discussion about what it should look like. a fee-based system makes the most sense. but i understand there are people who are talking about other models that include perhaps a bundle payment model or accountable or medical home model, fine. let's have that debate and discussion. that's what congress is here to do, hold hearings, get information, and come up with a rational, sustainable policy that will replace this forma. i do not understand why this was not tackled, as bad as the health care law is/was, it would have been better had this problem been fixed in the process. but again, you take $500 billion out of medicare, you don't even

make a downdamente on fixing this -- downpayment on fixing this problem. it would have been far better to at least sequester some of that money and say, we are going to fix that fundamental problem that exists today because we know it's interfering with our medicare patients having access to their doctors in odd to get medical care. it's a problem that must be tackled and must be resolved. now, what about the over-the-horizon stuff? this congress is going to come to an end in a few weeks' time and the next congress will be sworn in, the 112th congress will take over with a great deal of promise.

many more new members have been seen in congress in decades, a congress that is going to have a vast amount of experience in the outside world, the real world. because of the activity with the health care law, more doctors ran for congress at least on my side than anyone has ever seen before. six of them were elected. nine physicians on the republican side coming back, six more coming in, 15 doctors in congress. that number is likely unprecedented in congressional history. i don't know the high-water mark for physicians in the past, but certainly that represents a significant increase over anything i have seen in my shortenure here. what do we do about this health care law? deeply flawed. vastly unpopular across the country. what is this congress going to

do with this health care law? if i could rip it out root and branch tomorrow, i would do it. it's important this congress have a vote on repeal on this law and have that vote fairly early into the next congress. there are so many aspects of this new law that are so pernicious on so many levels that i believe it threatens the fabric of our republic and it violates that central could haven ant between governing. that basic premise was discarded during this health care debate and vote. remember how the speaker of the house said, we got to pass this bill so you'll understand what's in it. once you understand what's in it, you will be all for it. that's not the way it's supposed to work. i hope the repeal vote happens in the first month of the new congress. i understand what the mathis. i understand that the other body

is unlikely to go along with that repeal, but i think it would be the embodyment of what people voted for and they need to see the vote carried out on the floor of this house. it needs to be a roll call vote and needs to be a called roll and every person answer affirmatively or negatively whether they stand for repeal of this very flawed law. the senate is not likely to do the same thing. if the senate does, other end may provide a veto. we don't know the answers to those questions and for that reason, the repeal vote is very important. doesn't mean that the repeal vote is all that happens. and certainly there are ways to look at the funding for the implementation of this law. remember that this law requires the creation of well over 150

new federal agencies to administer various parts of this law. that is all significantly expensive. and there are ways to get at the implementation structure through the funding of the implementation. i mentioned early on in the hour, my committee, the committee on energy and commerce, has not held a single oversight hearing over the implementation of this new law since it was signed down at the white house in the third week of march. why is that important? interest costs are going up. the president said they would go down but they are going up. are insurance actors bad actors and will rise their prices or are they going up because they have to be able to keep up with the new mandates that has been layered poven them?

wouldn't it be great to have a hearing and have people -- we always swear in our witnesses, and they have to raise their hand and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, come to our committee and give testimony to our committee why this is occurring. bring in the federal agencies and ask them to delineate the increased number of mandates that the insurance companies are having to deal with and have the insurance kpts come in and tell us why the costs are going up. remember, in the course of this law, there is another provision called the medical-loss ratio which is set at 85% for large insurance companies and 80% for small insurance companies. that means there is only a 15% or 20% portion that can be spent on administrative activities and the rest must be spent on clinical activities. if the insurance companies have raised their rates just simply to cover future losses, when those calculations are done on

the medical-loss ratio when the rules are written and the calculations are applied, if there is an overcharge on the part of the insurance company, they will be required to rebate that money back to the rate payers. it would only be a short-term gain by the snuns companies to do that. but let's have the hearings and ask the questions and let's get the information and not just point fingers at the federal agency or the insurance companies as to who is to blame for the virginias premium increases, because american people don't care. they are concerned about the amount of premium increase that has occurred during this enrollment period this fall and what is going to happen going forward. it has had a devastating effect on how people purchase their insurance. another thing that i would like to point out, remember every time in that 2,700-paged bill where it said in there, and the

secretary shall, that creates a whole episode of new rule making by the sick secretary of health and human services. we have had that experience in the past. once the final rule is submitted, it becomes difficult to walk back from that practice. wouldn't it be a far better or wouldn't it be an improvement on the rule-making process if we invite the relevant agencies in and the relevant participants in that rule-making process to talk to us as those rules are being developed, to talk about whether or not there were any questions about congressional intent tenth, to ask questions about how the implementation is going to occur, what will be the costs, any effect, any effects on employers or employees, employment effects. one thing this last election --

last election was about was jobs and job creation. maybe that's questions we should asking in the oversight hearings. we did have experience with that in the stimulus bill in -- passed in february of 2009 because there was a provision in the bill that provided for funds to help pay for electronic medical records. people will say electronic medical records are a good thing, it's going to make it easier for the doctors to give good care and quality care. ok, that's something we can all be for. the bill passed, the law passed in february of 2009, and the office of the national coordinator for health information technology got busy about crafting those rules, and sure enough, 11 months later, in january of 2010, they come forward with the rules that govern things like meaningful use. these are all going to be the parameters on which the

possibility of payment or subsidizing the purchase of electronic medical records, that's on which it's going to be based. the problem was, the rule for meaningful use, when it came out, doctors and hospitals called our offices to say, this doesn't work in the world in which we live. this is not something that's applicable to the real world situation. can you do something about that? and indeed, we tried. another member on the democratic side, zack space from ohio, and i circulated a letter, got well over 250 signatures on it, sent it back to the center for medicare and medicaid services, can you help us with this rule, can you help us perhaps make something more manageable in a real-world situation. they said, we can do some things but basically the rule is set at this point and that's what it's going to be going forward. it's very difficult to modify the process after the fact. we saw that with the stimulus

bill. ok, we're into this health care bill now, seven months into it, we know there's a lot of rule making that's going to occur, every line that says, the secretary shall, invokes that rule making, and the public comment and the rule proposed and the final rule coming down. all of that affects the delivery of health care for every man, woman and child in this couldn't arery for the next three generations. aren't we obligated to try to get it right? aren't we obligated to ask the secretary into our committee and ask how this process is going and again if they have any questions as to congressionaintent? one of the things that disturbs me as we go through this and watch the implementation strategy on this bill is the creation of entirely new federal agencies that are basically being created not by the united states congress, but by the federal agency itself.

the united states congress pushed a lot of power that we would normally have in the legislative process, we pushed it over to the executive branch in the rule making process. we did it in the health care bill, also occurred in the financial regulatory bill. it's not a good way to govern and you don't get -- you don't get your best legislative product by doing that. in my opinion. and we would have been far better served to retain this activity within our committees and in fact that's the way the founders envisioned it. we're re-elected every two years, we are immediately accountable to the people, the folks that draw paychecks to the federal agencies, yeah, maybe accountable when you elect a president, maybe not because you have career people in all of the federal agencies that in fact very much insulated from whether or not the people are in agreement with what they're doing or not system of in my opinion, it was

wrong to push so much power over to the executive branch and to the federal agencies that power should have been retained within the united states congress. but here's an example of one of the new federal agencies that's been created. the office of consumer information and insurance oversight. fairly benign sounding name, probably some functions that would make some sense, but in fact, the language for the creation of this office of consumer information and insurance oversight occurs nowhere in the bill no where in the legislative language does it call for the office of consumer information and insurance oversight. it is a function that the secretary deemed was a -- an additional agency she would need to do her work as she saw it that was outlined in the bill but now we have a brand new federal agency. space being rented somewhere in a building for them to occupy.

new positions being advertised for and hired. obviously this costs money. where has it come from? i don't know. remember, the united states congress has not passed a single appropriations bill this year. we are running on the appropriations bills from last year under a continuing resolution that was passed on september 30 before we went home at the end of september, but the office of consumer information and insurance oversight did not exist until june of this year. so where is the money appropriated that is responsible for running this agency? i'm told it's reprogrammed from other places within h.h.s. and h.h.s. has the money for this implementation. but i beg to differ. those moneys are supposed to be appropriated by the united states congress. we are, by law, under the constitution, reresponsible for the purse strings.

we are supposed to be the ones that write the checks to the federal agencies to allow them to do their work and it isy that activity that the united states house of representatives is able to keep a little bit tighter leash as far as oversight is concerned on federal agencies. here we have a brand new federal agency that as best as i can determine was not called for in the law that was signed by the president. you have various offices all of which will be employing multiple people so every one of these places on the flow chart are going to have a number of people working there and answering to the director of that part of the office of consumer information and insurance oversight. wouldn't it be great to have at least one hearing in the committee on energy and commerce and the subcommittee of oversight and investigation or the health subcommittee to say -- to ask the folks who are

in charge of this to come into the committee and tell us what they're doing who has been in charge, just for an example, who has been in charge of looking at this to see if there was duplication? surely all of these functions, some of them were probably already being performed by the department of health and human services. have we got anybody looking at the duplication of effort that may now be occurring? everyone bemoans the growth in federal government, everyone bemoans the rapid rise in federal debt but do we have anyone who is looking at where duplication may be occurring? where there may be cost savings? if there's an office of insurance programs and office of consumer insurance oversight, maybe there's another department that can be closed. if there's a division of rules compliance, maybe there's another office in either health and human services or the office of personnel management that's no longer necessary.

why have we not had the oversight hearings to understand where the duplication is occurring and where the additional cost may be being expended that are unnecessary. what is the total employment for this entire flow chart? what's the total employment? what's the total salary information? is there anyone being paid in excess of what would be the normal federal pay level? we don't know the answer to any of these questions. what is the background of the individuals who come here? are they basically people who contributed to political campaigns in the past or people who have brought with them particular expertise. again, i would argue if there is particular expertise they are providing, is that expertise then not necessary in another office that is currently in existence in the department of health and human services. let's be honest this health care bill that was signed into law last march was not a bipartisan product. the only thing that was bipartisan about this bill was the opposition.

democrats across the aisle voted with republicans against this bill, no republican voted in favor of this bill last march. what have we seen as a result of this election? profound, profound change in what the american people saw and did in regard to the united states congress. six new doctors in the freshman class, absolutely unprecedented and again in my time in congress and i think it says something about the people who deliver the health care in this couldn't arery, what their opinion is of congress at this point. by golly if this is going to do, maybe i'd better get up there an take care of it myself. after all, that's the way doctors are wired. this is a flawed process that led to a flawed product. it must be repealed. i look forward to that day in january when that repeal vote is held. in the meantime, and after that, until we can actually get things under control, the

oversight process and the funding for the implementation must be under strict scrutiny. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable lorraine c. miller, clerk of the united states house of representatives, madam clerk, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena for deposition testimony and documents issued by the u.s. district court for the district of columbia in connection with a civil case now pending before that court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 8 of the rules of the house. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: under the peeker -- speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert for 60 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate that so much. tonight, since we've heard over and over about how destructive the deficits are from the president, i thought we would discuss some of the ways we can work on that. there's plenty of good solutions. we discussed yesterday the fact that this administration pushed through a $400 billion land grab bill that would allow them to spend $400 billion to just buy land. i like my friend from utah, rob bishop's, proposal that before people from states that don't have much of any federal ownership of land keep pushing through bills to buy up land in

other states, that they should be required to sell land first to the federal government in those states. so that any state that has less than 20% ownership of the federal government needs to find out what it's like when the federal government takes over land in a state, deprives the local government of any tax base from that land, deprives the local area of any economic growth to speak of from that land, yes, there are parks in certain ones -- parks and certain ones are are very active and provide money to the area, jobs, things like that, but more often, when the federal government comes in and grabs land, puts it off limits, it just starves the local schools, it starves the local government of any assistance.

originally when the federal government started grabbing land and taking it away from local areas, yes they paid something for some of it, but there was an agreement. look, we know we're taking away revenue from local government from schools so tell you what, we'll provide you with a part of the revenue off the land, whether it was from trees, which are one of our greatest renewable resources, or whether it was from natural resources like oil or gas, minerals of different kinds. that all changes and so many local governments and schools have been left high and dry, which is often the case, the federal government makes you promises and you rely on those promises to your detriment and unlike in the law with any individual who makes promises on which you rely to your detriment, raising the legal issue of promissory estoppel, you can't use it against the

federal government. in fact, all you get is a look from some people in the federal government that, well, it's all your fault, you trusted us. did you not know you can't trust our federal government? so if we just -- we don't even know what land has been purchased with that $400 billion that we were borrowing from china and other places, but if we just quit buying, sold what we had, sold our interest in general motors and chrysler, sold our interest in wall street, sold off fannie mae, freddie mac, sold off thing this is government shouldn't be doing, open up the federal reserve books so everybody could see what was going on, clean that up of anything that there's federal involvement in that there shouldn't be in the way of assistance and ownership and money just flowing to wall street buddies of this

administration, we could save a lot of money from that, $400 billion just from that one bill. then when you look at the $10 billion that we are in arears on mapet nance and upkeep for our current -- maintenance and upkeep for our current buildings on national park lands, the reason is we're just squandering it buying more and more land and in many cases we're buying land adjoining parks that have no similarity to the characteristic that made it a park in the first place. sometimes it was just some friend in congress that some wealthy land owner was able to get to push through a bill to make it a part of the national park which forced the federal government to buy it. we need to have a committee go through, examine exactly what is really characteristic of a national park for the reason that it was set aside.

you've got some that will be enormous, you know, whether it's yellowstone or the grand tee tons, grand canyon, but for those that are not so big, but we've just added thousands of acres, we need to take a look at disposing ourselves of that land for a price and getting out that have business and then using the money to actually help the national park facilities that we have and with the rest of it, bring down the deficit. one of the other things that we could do to save money and actually would be a far better foreign policy is in a bill this congress, the 2011th, it's 4636, and i have filed it in the 110th and in the 109th congress, this is the third time, it doesn't look like it's going to get to

the four in this congress, but i have hopes for the next congress. what this bill does in the summary of the bill at the top officially it says, to prohibit the united states assistance to foreign countries that oppose the position of the united states and the united nations. and basically in essence it goes through, it's a very short bill, just five pages, nothing like the 2,800 or 1,300 or 2,000-page bill, five pages, but in essence any nation that votes against the united states' position and contested votes more than half the time will receive no financial assistance from the united states the following year. each year on or about march 31 we get a report from the u.n. on all the votes and all the -- and how each member nation voted and

so it's real easy to calculate after march 31 of each year exactly how nations voted. now, some would say, oh, well that's not caring and loving and you've said before that you're a christian, how you can treat nations like that? and it's very important that people understand the basis for christian approach to government. we don't use our office to shove our beliefs down others but just so people know where the philosophy comes from, it's helpful to take a look. and in fact i was noticing online, regarding the book that jerry boynkin, just a real national treasure, a national hero, lieutenant general in the united states army, part of the

orinal delta force, it's been my honor and pleasure to meet with him and share a meal with him, but this is a real heree and he -- hero and he has a book out, "never surrender" and, let's see, publisher's weekly went through and said, lieutenant general boykins' illustrious military career takes centerstage in his religious faith in the fox hole. he was thrust into several harrowing encounters such as the events portrayed in the film "black hawk down"," the iranian hostage crisis and the war on terror. he -- the accounts are charged with excitement. some may find his writing a bit polarizing. he's not subtle in his regarding his disease like for democratic political figures like -- dislike for democratic political figures. others will be inspired by how he faced death on a number of

occasions and held tightly to his faith as a buoy through times. toward the end of his career, he began giving public talks, inspiring people to faith in god and to the ideals of the united states. while boy kin is to be commended for his patriotism, bravery and conviction, the book never successfully explains, this says, how his military career co-existed with some of the more pacifist tenants of christianity. and so sometimes people hear debate on the floor, they hear people taking different positions and, you know, a question like this being raised by them, it's often helpful because we know where people are ignorant so that we can help bring them along. so that you understand where people are coming from, from the different faiths that exist here in the members of the house of

representatives. but regarding that, many know scriptures, i've heard friend as i cross the aisle accusing people on this side -- across the aisle accusing people on this side, i've had democratic friends say, jesus said you're to be kind, one to another, you know, love and treat your neighbor as yourself, the golden rule of course is often used here, helping widows and orphans, things like that. and we are to turn the other tcheek, -- cheek, we're to be humble as individuals, but when it comes to the government, the government has a far different role. the government's role is exactly as the oath we take in this chamber and will do so on january 5 of 2011, exactly what it says. one of the most important, i

think the most important, is providing for the common defense. i mean, protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. you have to go back to the founding of this country and it's easy to look at the back of a dollar bill and understand those are the two sides of our great seal on the back of a dollar bill. on the one side, the eagle with the ribbon through its mouth saying, out of many one. we welcome immigrants. we do. thank god for the immigrants that have come to this country. i asked my mother once, my late mother once, what we were on her side of the family and she said, son, you're a dukes mixture. that sounds good, what does that mean?

and she said, well, we were in the dog world, son, you would be a mutt. so apparently i come from many different areas of the world in my gene yoling. but that's -- geneology. but that's what it was designed to address. we welcome people from all over the world. they come here and become one people. we welcome people that speak all kinds of languages but in order to do as that phrase says, that our founders thought was so important, we need one language. you go do research or as i was an exchange student in the soviet union, you find one of the problems they had was trying to make sure all of these peoples within the soviet union spoke the same language. they were very aggressive about it, pretty mean-spirited about it.

we're not. but we need people to speak the same lack wadge -- language and when i see people across the country saying, let's teach these immigrants in their own language, let's teach these children in the language of the country they come from, i know they mean well, but what they do is condemn those children to manual labor jobs and like my good friend gus ramirez back in tyler, texas, said, his parents immigranted -- immigrated from mexico and his dad was exceedingly strict about it, gus said his mom and dad spoke spanish in their home but in essence he said, son, if you're going to be anything in this country, you've got to speak good english. and that is why i expect you kids to speak english in the home. as a result gus has been city councilman, county commissioner, successful businessman, but if you really care, you would want

these young children to reach their god-given potential. be the president of the company, not the ditch digger for the country. just teach them english. and we can be one nation under god, out of many one, on the other side, though, you have the pyramid with the triangle above it and you see the all-seeing eye of god, the eye respects the all-seeing -- represents the all-seeing eye of god and meaning, he god has smiled on our undertaking. they believed that because it's as ben frankly -- franklin said at the constitutional convention, during the contest with great britain when we were sensible of danger, frankly said, we had daily prayer in this room. our prayers were heard and they were graciously answered. they knew that, they knew that god was smiling on their undertaking. but underneath the pyramid are

the words meaning in essence, new order of the ages, new order of things. and the reason they had that was they knew that there had been a parliament in england, of course, they talked about it. they knew that there had been a senate in ancient rome there had been other places where there had been legislative groups but they also knew in all of those there was a king or a cesar or somebody who could overrule whatever was done and even disband the legislative body. so what they were designing was a government where the people would be the government. the people would rule themselves. that's why this was a totally new order of things. this was not a new world order, it was a new order the ages where people would get to govern

themselves. and for most of this country's history people understood they were the government and that you would have the hiring day and you should prepare yourself for hiring day so that when you went and voted or hired servants to go do your will that you, the people, as the government would hire successful servants who would do the will of the government. that was their thought. that's why it was a new order of the ages. people were going to govern themselves. so in that context when we know that the government in this country was supposed to be we the people and that those of us were elected and sent to this body were supposed to be servants. that was the point. so if you look to a chapter that addresses the government's obligation, it's different from

those of individuals. individuals being kind. but when you're government here, when you're the servants that are supposed to carry out the government job, you have an obligation to protect the people that sent you here. you're the servants that are supposed to protect the people. if you're in the military, you're the extension, you're the instrument of the government to protect the people. so when you look at romans 13 and this is in a new american translation, you find it says, romans 13:1, let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities for there is no authority except from god and those that exist have been established by god. and that means, in the united states in this new order of

things, the people are that authority. it's the people that elect, hire the servants and so the collective will of the people is the government as carried out by their servants they send to places like washington. whoever resists authority opposes what god has appointed. here in the united states, this government was created where the people are the government. so they're expected to do their job. hire good people. when the people get upset, they're are resisting the servants in this country. they're not resisting the government. they are the government. -- they are the government. they're resisting the servants and the arrogance and the atmosphere of arrogance that has resided in this city for so long.

verse three goes on basically for rulers that are not the cause of fear to good conduct but to evil. do you wish to have no fear of authority? then do what is good. you'll receive approval from it. for it, the government, is a servant of god for your good. but if you do evil, be afraid. for it, the government, does not bear the sword without purpose. it is the servant of god to inflict wrath upon the evil dore. -- upon the evildoer. apparent the -- apparently the folks at publishers weekly weren't aware of that, but i know our friend jerry boykin was aware. he was the sword, part of the sword, as the mitary. whether you -- when you do evil whether in iran, or panama or

wherever our military and the delta force was sent, romans 13 says be afraid. they don't wear that southward in vain. if you do evil they're coming after you. why would they do that? because they are part of the instrument that is to protect the people in this country system of the people can go about carrying out the beat constitutes that jesus pointed out. some say that washington wasn't a christian but in his own resignation he sent out to the 13 state governors, he ends his resignation like this -- and i won't read the whole thing, but he said, i make it my earnest prayer that god would have you and the state over which you propre-side in his holy protection and to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the united states particularly, for their

brethren who served in the field. finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselveses with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the divine author of our blessed religion. without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we cannot hope to be a hp pay -- happy nation he signs it, i have the great honor and eseem steam to be your nation's most humble servant, george washington he understood, he got it. he was the servant of the government. that was part of the new order of things. people governing themselves. but the military is the instrument, it is the sword. some people may not be aware but a sword is not meant as a

loving touch to people. normally. it could be used to knight people in some places like england of old, but the southward is an instrument of war. and it's not wielded by the government in vain you come after this country, it's supposed to be wielded in response. when we're attacked, an act of war comes against this nation, as attacking a nation's embassy is, taking embassy personnel hostage is an act of war, there should be a southward, execute wrath -- should be a sword execute wrath immediately. i was at fort bennett in 1979 when our president did nothing but beg the iranians to let

them go. it was two or three days that the spokesman in iran for the ia toe la was saying the students have them, the students have them. it seemed to me as a member of the united states army at the time, he's leaving himself a back door. if president carter will say, ok, you're saying the students have him, you get our hostages out within 48 hours or we accept what happened as what it is an act of war and we are bringing the full wrath of the united states military to tehran and if you harm those hostages, then to use romans 13:4's words, be afraid because we are not going to wield the sword in vain. you'll pay a very heavy price. but since our president didn't do that, he allowed them to keep hostages for well over a year, then it was great for a recruiting foorl those terrorists for the last 30

years. remember 1979? we committed an act of war against the united states and they did nothing. there was the disastrous effort in the desert and from what people i know and trusted back at the time had told me and what i've read since, what i've heard from people involved since, president carter scaled down the escape effort going into iran from what was originally proposed and as a result they didn't have enough helicopters when they got to the staging area. and as we should have learned from vietnam, we should know in afghanistan, unless you're going to have rules of engagement, that say to our men and women in uniform, we are going to give you everything you need, your life is precious to us, you proteblingt yourself

and you go win the war and do everything you can to win and we'll give you everything you need to win. unless we're going to do that, we shouldn't send them. don't send them. this president hadn't shown sufficient commitment to those in afghanistan and if we're not going to do that, we need to get them out and bring them home. but there are people who want to destroy us over there that we hadn't adequately addressed and it is turning into another vietnam, it seems. that's not our role. if you believe the bib lickal perspective. we're to execute wrath on those who have done evil. and we haven't finished doing that. so, i have this bill, 4636 in this congress, don't know what the number will be next year, and just so people know, how things stand, give you some of the numbers, pakistan, we gave

pakistan $738 million and they voted against us last year 87.5% of the time. the philippines, they've shown that as a government they don't have a lot of love and adoration for this country they voted against us a majority of the time and we gave them over $116 million. russia, who just provided their best antiaircraft weapon through lebanon to iran, we gave them nearly $100 million. they may have used some of that $100 million, since money is fungible, to build a -- to build s-300's to provide to

iran so they could shoot down israeli or american planes who might simply, someday if we have a courageous president, someday come after the nuclear threat that is looming in iran. south africa, they voted against us most of the time last year and these figure says we gave them $574 million. sudan. they voted against us 90% of the time last year, we gave them $337 million. interesting stuff here. let's see. you've got yemen. yemen that provided people pay lirntly that attacked -- apparently that attacked, an act of war, against the u.s.s. coal, we didn't -- cole, we didn't respond as if it was an act of war, we didn't wield the sword and do what we should have but yemen, we've given them $17 million last year and

they voted against us most of the time, naturally. these attempted terrorist attack of the packages that were sent apparently planned and emanating from yemen, we're giving yemen money to help that country as they attempt to fight everything we believe in, most everything we believe in, in the u.n. vens way lark our dear friend vens way lark we gave them $10 million, may have been some other pockets we used money from, but for this pocket, we gave them nearly $10 million and of course they vote against us the vast majority of the time. uganda votes against us most of the time, we gave them $351 million. let's see, others, banglade. they voted against us 80% of the time. we gave them $105 million. bolivia, they voted against us 70% of the time, we gave them

$103 million. brazil, heck, we just spent -- provided $2 billion loan for their deep water drilling program, probably didn't hurt that that was george soro s's single largest investment, as far as we know, so the $2 billion the u.s. taxpayers are standing good for on a loan will help make him rich, that's a great thing, i'm sure if you're a big so are ros fan. cambodia votes against is most of -- most of the time, we gave them $58 million. let's see. we've got -- gosh, we gave cuba $45 million. wasn't that special? they voted against us 90% of the time. republic of the congo, we gave them $104 million they voted against us most of the time.

heck, egypt, we gave them this pocket of money, at one point $1.7 billion, as i understand more than that. they voted against us 81.8% of the time. ethiopia voted against us 83.3% of the time. we rewarded their opposition to the things that we hold dear by giving them $455 million. india, $100 million, they voted against us about 9% of the time. -- about 89% of the time. indonesia, the president just visited, seems like he got a pretty good reception but when it came to his positions, they voted against him about 80% of the time in the u.n. but we did reward them with about $190 million. now people are out of work, they're struggling, they're trying to make ends meet as best they can and yet we're

just giving money away hand over fist like we were just the richest folks in the history of man kind, that we got money to burn. we're just throwing it away. as i said previously, and it continues to be true, you don't have to pay people to hate you, they'll do it for free. it's that simple. why keep paying billions and billions of dollars to couldn't areries that despise us that oppose everything we believe in, that oppose our love of freedom and liberty, that oppose our belief in equality of men and women and different races, why do we keep giving billions of dollars to people who oppose that and are doing everything they can to make

life an absolute hell for people based on real jus beliefs, national religion, gender, treat women like property, why do we keep giving people billions and billions of dollars? you would think, i know charities across america are hurting right now, they're not getting the contributions they do normally in a good economy, because when people lose their jobs, they run out of money, they're barely providing for themselves and their family to people under their -- the people under their roof. they're not able to give like they do in the good times system of charities are hurting here in the united states. what we find with this government, and it's not new to this administration this administration is doing it but it's been going on for a long time, it's not new, with all fairness, to the obama administration, it's been going on a long time, we are in a

world of hurt, we are being told by nations around the world that you're spending money like an irresponsible person, you've got to stop spending money in such a crazy fashion and so normally, we were acting as a responsible person a responsibleentcy ty, we'd say, we're pretty broke right now, we can't keep giving money to people that hate us and are doing everything they can, many of them funneling money to groups who use it to hurt us, that might seem strange, but when you look around the world, we recrenly just rearmed lebanon. lebanon, that's right they went to war against israel. we were helping groups that that keep attacking our dear friend israel. why are we giving them money? do we honestly think we're going

to buy their love and affection? you can't buy love and affection. when you try what you purchase is contempt. because they know that we know they hate us. they know that we know they vote against us most of the time. so how could they think otherwise, that we're the most stupid irresponsible people in the world to keep paying people to hate us? it makes no sense. you know, these nations are sovereign. we respect a nation's sovereignty. make your own calls, vote as you want to vote. if you're in the u.n., vote as you want to vote. but we're not going to pay you to oppose us at every turn. that's why i keep filing this bill. and that's why i am hopeful that eventually we'll get it passed.

we mean no ill-will to these countries who keep opposing us, who want to treat women like property, stone women to death, what they call honor killings and what i would have found someone guilty of murder in my court back in texas, because it sure looks and sounds like murder to me, under our law. and under our law is where we're supposed to be found. not under shari'a law, not under some other nation's law, but under our law. so why don't we keep -- so why do we keep paying countries to mistreat women and children and torture their own people? and deprive them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? they're sovereign, they can make their own choices but we should not pay them to hate us. now, in follow-up for the rest

of this time, i know our president has said before, we're not a christian nation and i will not debate that with the president because he may be right. he may very well be right. but what i know is where we came from. as a student and a lover of american history i know enough about our founding and apparently a great deal more than our president learned when he was in school in indonesia and other places, he didn't learn the history of this nation as i did. what would you expect? of course in indonesia they're not going to teach you american history, certainly not the best parts. they may teach you parts that make you think less of america. i can see that. and perhaps that's why indonesia votes against us most of the time in the u.n. they just don't have our values and of course in their schools they would teach their values

which include being against the things that we hold dear. but we have history to rely on and so i'm just going to go through some historic writings and speeches, just, mr. speaker, so people know a little bit more about our history and where they came from because as great philosophers have said through the ages, if you don't know where you came from you cannot possibly find the proper direction ahead. john quincy adams, john quincy adams was the first son of a president to have been elected president. in september of 1811, in a letter to his son who was a u.s.

minister in st. petersburg, russia, john quincy adams said, so great is my event ration for the bible and so strong my belief that when dual read and meditated on it is of all books in the world that which contributes most to make men good, wise and happy. that the earlier my children begin to read it, the bible, the more steadily they pursue the practice of reading it throughout their lives. the more lively and confident will be my hopes that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectable members of society. that was john quincy adams. another from abraham lincoln. this was march 30 of 1863. these are abraham lincoln's own

words, we have them in writing from him. this is march 30, 1863, his prayer proclamation. lincoln said in part, we have forgotten god. we have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us and we have veinly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. intoxicated with unbroken success we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the god that made us. it behooves us then to humble

ourselves before the owe phenomenonned power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. abraham lincoln. 45 days before his assassination , in his second inaugural, and that's inscribed in the marble on the north wall of the lincoln memorial, in that inaugural he's talking about the north and the south and i realize the president says we're not a christian nation but lincoln was addressing what had been founded as a christian nation. and what had been founded upon christian tenants. as a christian nation we welcome people of all walks of life, of all nations, all raises -- races, national origin, gender, we welcome them.

because that is part of the christian teaching for individuals. but he was trying to theologically deal with the issue of a horrible, horrible war like the civil war where brothers fought, family members fought and died at the hand of another. lincoln's words, march 4 of 1865, he said, both read the same bible, talkingbout the north and the south, and pray to the same god. the prayers of both could not be answered. that of neither has been answered fully. the almighty has his own purposes. then he quotes from scripture and says, woe unto the world because of offenses, unquote. yet if god will that the war continue until all the wealth, piled by the bondsmen's 250

years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so it must be said, quote, another scripture, quote, the judgments of the lord are true and righteous, unquote. now, i know that our current president reveres president franklin roosevelt and so i figured he would certainly be rewarded in knowing franklin d. roosevelt's own words. so for the sake of this body and anybody that might happen to see, i will provide franklin d. roosevelt's own words.

for example, march 4, 1933, in his first inaugural address these were his words, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. in such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. they concern, thank god, only material things, practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. they know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers, they have no vision and when there is no vision the people perish. that of course proverbs 29: 18. the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. we may now restore the temple to the ancient truths.

we face arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity. with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values and this dedication of a nation we humbly ask the blessing of god. may he protect each and every one of us. may he guide me in these days to come. more words of franklin roosevelt, december 6, 1933. if i were to ask -- if i were asked to state the great objective which church and state are both demanding for the sake of every man and woman and child in this country, i would say that great objective is a more abundant life. franklin roosevelt, december 24, 1933, roosevelt said, this year

marks a greater national understanding of the significance of our modern lives, of the teaching of him, he capitalized him, whose birth we celebrate, to more and more of us the words, quote, thou shalt love thigh neighbor as thyself, unquote have taken on a meaning of showing itself, improving ourself in our purposes and daily lives. may the practice of that high ideal grow in us all in the year to come. i give you and send you one and all, old and young, a merry christmas and a truly happy new year. and so for now and for always, god bless us everyone. continuing franklin roosevelt's own words, this is december 24, 1934, let us make the spirit of christmas of 1934 that of courage and unity.

that is, i believe, an important part of what the maker of christmas would have it mean. in this sense the scriptures admonish us to be strong and of good courage, to fear not, to dwell together in unity. another excerpt from franklin roosevelt, 1935. we cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the republic. where we have been the truest and most cnsistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity. continuing on with franklin roosevelt's words, january 20, 1937, he said in part in that inaugural address, i shall do my utmost to speak their purpose

and to do their will, seeking divine guidance to help each and every one to give light to them that sit in darkness and to guide our feet in the way of peace. again franklin roosevelt, january 6, 1941, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. the first in freedom of speech and expression. the second in freedom of every person to worship god in his own way. this nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women and its faith in freedom under the guidance of god. again, franklin roosevelt, january 20, 1941.