support of h.r. 6516. this bill does make several very minor technical corrections to the recently coast guard authorization act of 2010. this legislation put together with cooperation of mr. cummings, mr. oberstar and with his assistance the office of legislative council and i urge all members to support h.r. 6516. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6516. 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 bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

>> i have a kindle that my briefs are on. i saw that justice scalia said he had them on an ipad, i thought maybe i should do them an an pie aye pad. mine are on a kindle. i also sometimes truck them around in a hard copy. i do both. but it is, it's endless reading. because many of these cases, not only the parties submit briefs, but there are many, many organizations and individuals and governments who are interested in the case, they'll submit friends of the court brief, amicus briefs, and

some of these cases there will be 40 or 50 briefs. so there's a lot of reading. that's a big part of the job. if a kindle or ipad can make it easier, that's terrific. >> that was a portion of justice kay began's first thrfings interview since joining the nation's highest court. you can see the entire interview sunday at 6:30 and 9:30 eastern here on c-span. just in time for the holiday season, the supreme court, c-span's latest book is being offered directly from our publisher to our viewerers at a special price, just $5 plus shipping and handling a discount of more than 75% off the cover price. this is the first book to tell the story of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. 10 original c-span interviews with current and retired

justices, including with son yo sew to mayor. it gives a view of the court that's rich in tradition. it has 16 pages of photographs detailing the court's building. to order at the special price of $5, go to c-span.org/books and click on the supreme court book. be sure to use the pro emoe code c-span at checkout. order soon to receive it in time for holiday gift giving. the state department outlined the result of the latest round of climate change talks. countries who took part came to nonbinding agreements on assistance for poor countries. we start with a statement from p.j. crowley on the death of

ambassador richard holbrooke, yesterday. >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. it is, of course, a very sad day here at the state department. we have lost one of our own and a ledge dare figure in richard holbrooke, who could show a rooming -- who could fill a room, including this one, and took great pleasure in engaging the press, advancing whatever he was working on, whether it was peace in the balkans, peace in the congo as u.n. ambassador or most recently peace in south asia in the context of afghanistan and pakistan. a number of world leaders have already checked in today to express their condolences to the department and to the holbrooke family. obviously we'll have more

details as they determine funeral arrangements and memorial services for richard. he was always known as richard. but first to start off our briefing today, we have another special envoy, todd stern, who has returned from the climate change negotiations in cancun and wants to put what happened last week in perspective we'll start off with todd. >> thank you, p.j. i second what p.j. said about richard holbrooke a good friend of mine and actually very supportive of our work on this issue and of me personally. sad day in that regard. let me return to the events of the last couple of weeks. over the last two weeks, representatives for more than 100 -- more than 190 nations met in cancun for the 16th conference of the parties of the u.n. framework convention

on climate change with the goal of reaching new agreements to advance our efforts to meet this challenge. in the early morning hours of saturday, in cancun, the parties largely achieved that goal. this result was fundamentally consistent with u.s. objectives. throughout the year our view was to consolidate the progress made last year in copenhagen by many of the world's leaders, including president obama, and have such outcome fully endorsed by the conference of the party, all the nations to the treaty. as the copenhagen accord obviously was not. the resulting cancun agreement advances each of the core elements of the copenhagen accord, specifically it anchors the accord's mitigation pledges by both developed and developing countries in a parallel manner. it outlines a system of transparency with substantial detail and content including international consultations and

analysis, that was the negotiated phrase from the copenhagen aquord, and this will provide confidence that a clint's pledges are being carried out and help the world keep track of the track we're on in terms of reducing emissions. the agreement in cancun also launches a new green climate fund with a process for setting it up. creates a framework to reduce deforestation in developing countries, establishes a so-called technology mechanism, which will include a new technology executive committee and a climate technology center and network. and it will also set up framework and committee to promote international cooperation and action adaptation. the u.s. is pleased the parties show the flexibility and prague matism necessary to make progress in each -- and

pragmatism necessary to make progress in each area. it was anything but clear for a long time that we would actually get this agreement but guided by what i think was a really outstanding mexican team, they worked through the various problems with patience and pragmatism, allowing us to reach the result that we did. this package is not going to solve climate change by itself but it is a good step, a step that's very much consistent with u.s. interests and will help move the path -- move the world down a path toward a broader global response to changing, to stopping climate change and let me stop here and take any questions that you have. >> can you tell us why they

shouldn't conclude that cancun basically punted the hardest issue, which is to say mandatory emissions caps, until next year when there's nothing particularly to suggest that there will be any more success on that issue next year? >> that's actually not what happened. the issue that was rolled over to next year is what happens in the kyoto protocol track. one of the complicating things, complicated things particularly for lay people in this negotiation is that there are simultaneously two negotiating tracks going forward. one is the kyoto protocol track which doesn't involve the united states because we're not part of it and the issue there is, will there be a second so-called commitment period of kyoto, the first being 2008 to 2012 and the question is, does it go on for a period after that. there is a lot of eagerness on the part, mostly, of developing

countries although not only, to have such a second period and there's a lot of resistance from a number of the parties, like japan, australia, russia, canada, to having such a period for a pretty understandable reason, actually. i mean, we don't take a side on this. we are comfortable with however the kyoto issue gets resolved, but you can understand the hesitance on the part of some countries to want to go into a second period, given that the second kyoto period would probably only cover 20-something percent of global emissions. doesn't have the united states in it, you don't have commitments from the major developing countries. still it is again a very passionately felt issue on the part of both developing and developed countries. so the issue there is, will there be binding caps under

kyoto. but again, kyoto is not the larger agreement that include emission commitments from the u.s., china, india, brazil, etc. on that track, at the moment, while there may be something, some kind of legal treaty down the road, that's not happening, i think, any time soon for the reason that we're not prepared to enter into legally binding commitments to reduce our emissions unless china, india, and so forth are also prepared to do that and at the moment they're not. it's a complicated answer, but it's a complicated question. >> can i just ask you, -- in south asia, where you have seen a lot of disasters, including sunesune, and they'll be on

their way in the future wharning have you done since the last sunesune and earthquake -- tsunami and earthquake, what are you doing? anything in that region? >> first of all, we are doing things, certainly, in the region. this is a global problem so that we are -- the purpose of the global treaty is precisely that this is one of those issues that is, obviously has local effects. if off problem in your region that's local. unlike other kinds of environmental problems where you have local water or air pollution, climate pollution is the same whether the pollution is in india or as they say in indiana, so it is a truly global problem which we are trying to deal with in a global way. we do have significant aid programs with india and other

countries in the region. one other little, just kind of point of fact. earthquakes and tsunamis, tsunamis coming from under water earthquakes, as i understand it, that's maybe one of the rare phenomena that we find that we see that actually has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. earthquakes are not climate change related. >> are you working on something, asking to put some kind of warning system like we have here in the u.s. an advanced warning system and so on? >> i can't speak authoritatively on all of the kinds of systems that we are putting in place, but i know that through agencies like noaa, the u.s. is actually doing a lot in that area. >> can you talk about india and its role in cancun?

>> i think india played a particularly constructive role in cancun. i think that india was very much faithful to its own national interests and faithful to its role in the g-77 but at the same time, creatively looking for solutions to difficult issues in the negotiation in a way that could bring in both, you know, developing countries, and by the way, developing countries are not a monolithic group at this pint. there's the large ones, there's africans and these developed nations and island states and so forth. i think that ind -- i think india played a particularly constructive role in trying to find solutions that would bring everybody to the table and one good example of that is on the issue of transparency, which was very important, it's

important because if you don't understand, it's great for countries to take -- to make pledges but it's important for all countries to have confidence in each other that the pledges are actually being carried out and implemented and so forth. it's an important issue, again, very different views, india made a proposal that i think people fundamentally came around, the ultimate language wasn't exactly what india suggested but it was really important that india did that. >> can you talk about the way industrial countries feel about the kyoto protocol and what you said about the u.s.'s position, what's the best that the u.s. hopes to happen in durbin? >> from our point of view, what just happened is really very significant. it outlines, kind of lays out

the structure of an international agreement in all of the crucial areas. these are, you know, the language used last year was politically binding. i think that's a good way to look at it. it's not legally binding but these are serious decisions made under the auspices of a legally binding treaty. these are all decisions made under the kind of umbrella of the u.n. framework convention on climate change. our governments do not take these things lightly. i think what you could have, what i would hope to see is, the countries start implementing, i think they already are, starting to implement their mitigation pledges to put in place following the elements, the outline if you will, that was negotiated in cancun a system of trands parentcy, set up a green fund, set up the technology institutions, and the adaptation institutions that were agreed to in cancun,

set up a system for increasing assistance to avoid deforestation and think like. you could do all these things -- not only you could do all these things, that's the program now. that's what we agreed to do to start implementing and further elaborating all these things. the day will come in the future when countries can come together in a legal format but you can get an awful lot done on the way to that and that's what we're trying to do yes. >> bill jones, the director of the climatic research institute inest oong lea told bbc news that there's been no sta statistically significant global warning since 1995. what would be your reaction to that data? do you agree or disagree with those findings? >> i'm not a scientist and i'm

not familiar with exactly what he said. i think if you look at the warming that has been recorded on a steady basis over the last 20 years or so, you will see very significant rise in temperatures over time. i think if you look at the last 20 years, you have something like a 15 or 18 warmest years in history having happened during that period. i think it's -- i think there's a very broad consensus of scientists who see a marked warming trend and again, they -- a very large percentage of scientists who study this area who attribute that to human activity. yes? >> i was wondering where you see the process going from here, colling out of cancun,

even with the details, there are details to be discussed over the next year. >> sure. >> do you expect to hold another meeting of the major economies in the near future? where do you see this going? >> i think there's going to be a lot of work that will need to be done this year to carry out and implement the various agreements that were just made. in some areas, there was a whole set of new guidelines that need to be written, transparency area is a good example of that. there's a lot of work to be done to flesh out the technology agreements and so forth. so i think in the -- i certainly don't have the whole vision of 2011 laid out yet since we just finished this agreement 48 hours ago, but i think clearly the implementation of the elements of the agreement that just happened will be an important piece of that. as for major economies, i'm

sure that we will meet again but we don't have any time set for that yet. >> two questions, along those lines. what is the u.s. specifically -- what does the u.s. specifically need to do? what's its role in the next year to move this process forward? and sort of a corollary to that, a number of senators expressed concern about even arguably modest international financing commitments by the u.s. how do we move forward given that? >> i think that the u.s. role this coming year is going to be much like the u.s. role this year which is to be a very active player in celting the agenda and working with countries in really every conceivable grouping and to try

to push for pragmatic and meaningful, you know, steps forward, which is what we did this year. we were, i think anybody would say, quite central players in the diplomacy in 2010 and i think that we will continue to do that in 2011. with respect to financing, look, the financial promises that were made in the first instance in copenhagen and continued in the cancun agreements are extremely important. they are a core part of the deal. obviously the fiscal situation is exceedingly tough in the u.s. it's tough in europe and other places as well. we are going to have to do the best we possibly can to carry out to make good on the first

instance the fast start pledge that was part of copenhagen and reiterated here. in the second instance, to work with parties to set up good structure of the good architecture for the green fund that's been agreed on. and then in the -- in the slightly longer term, slightly longer term to continue thinking through how sources can be put together for the $100 billion commitment to the goal of mobilizing that money from all sources, public and private, that we made by 2020. again, that's a joint commitment. and it's a commitment that's conditioned on meaningful action in the area of

mitigation and transparency. but that's a lot to work on. >> on the issue of china, binding commitments, is the u.s. position still that china has to both sign on to those binding commitments and take on real reductions? or is there something short of real reductions the u.s. could accept as part of a treaty? and on the m.r.v. issue, it seems like your comment since the decisions were adopted have been pretty positive toward the m.r.v. and the i.t.a. issues that you were so strong on there. i'm wondering, what's missing there or what would you like to still see strengthened or done on that issue or is the u.s. position that you're pretty satisfied with where we are on those? >> yeah. let me take the china question first.

our position on china is that china meeds to make significant reductions in its emissions but for china or other developing countries, at this stage, those will be relative reductions, reductions against the so-called business as usual path that they would be on. when countries, whether china or india or others, are growing at 6%, 8%, 10%, you can't slam the brakes on completely and say you've got to be making absolute reductions tomorrow. it couldn't work. don't forget, while the critical direction that we need to move on is to separate growth from the path of emissions, so that growth goes up but emissions can still go down because you've got so much energy coming from low carbon sources and so forth, at this

stage in life, the movement of emissions is very much -- very linked to the movement of economic growth. you're not going to get a chinese economy growing at 10% to have a below zero reduction in emissions. but what you can have is a significant reduction against what they would otherwise be doing. that is the focus. that's been our focus consistently. it's really the only rational focus that you could have. we're not calling -- i mean, it's not so much that we're calling on china or india to make legally binding commitments right now. what we're saying is, we will do legally binding commitments only if they are symmetrical. if the emerging market countries d do that also. if they're not ready to do that, it's not so much that we're criticizing that, we're saying, if that's where we are globally, then we need to push

forward in the kind of politically binding structure that we're doing now. we're comfortable with that. we can do it either way. we're just not going to have a completely asymmetrical system. that's what we mean in terms of both of the real reduction question and the binding question. with the m.r.v., i think we've made a good start. the elements we cared about are in the cancun agreement. so those elements still need to be put, you know, still need to be used as the architecture or the outline for a set of guidelines that will kind of spell out in a little bit more detail how the thing works. but our focus, the real issue, the debate in cancun was do you just agree to i.c.a. with a

50,000 foot agreement on principles that it will be facilitative and nonpunitive and we'll figure out everything else later, which we said unacceptable bauds we won't have any idea where we're going, or do you lay out a whole set of elements that will then guide you in what you have to do this year? which is what we have allowed for and what was ultimately agreed to. >> you said earlier, the day will come for legally binding accord. there are many people who say that the expectation of legally binding in the l.c.a. tract is creating -- setting it up for failure. do you think for the time being, or the next five or 10 years, that that should not be an expectation? >> first of all, i don't think -- i don't think that there is a strong expectation of a legally binding track in the l.c.a. part of the agreement. i think that the l.c.a.

agreements made it clear that a legally binding outcome was not being taken off the table, that's still something that could happen. any agreements that were being done in cancun were being done without prejudice to whether -- to the prospects for legal agreement or the content of a legal agreement. we agree with thall of that. but that's different from saying that there's an expectation that next year the year after, there's going to be a legal agreement. i think that the hot issue that emains on the table with respect to something legally binding right now is on the kyoto track. and the l.c.a. track leaves absolutely open the possibility of a legal outcome but doesn't, i don't think, set up an expectation for immediate resolution of that. you asked five, 10 years, i'm not going to put a time frame on it. i think it depends on how things develop and ways we might just not be able to

predict right now. the united states is not against it. but we're just -- we do not believe in the old world, old paradigm where all obligations go to developed countries and none to even the major developing countries. and it's for a simple reason. 55% of global emissions are coming from the developing world. in the next 20 years, that will ghow up to 65%. all the growth in emissions is coming from the developing world. we're the largest historic emitter, make no bones about that. we have to act, we recognize that and the developed world generally has to do that. but if you try to think about how to solve this problem going forward, it makes no sense to perpetuate that hard division. i think i've exhausted you. thank you very much.

>> stephen clement is joining us on the phone, he's director at the new america foundation joining us to talk about the death of mr. holbrooke, who died last night after surgery. after surgery. i just wanted to begin with a quote in "the washington post" on his death. the very last paragraph says -- as mr. holbrooke was sedated for surgeries, family members said to his pakistani surgeon -- you've got to stop this war in afghanistan. >> for some time i knew he was skeptical about keep parts of the afghanistan enterprise -- i know he was loyal to the administration and organize a capable of well functioning interdepartmental team dealing

with afghanistan. but just about a month ago something called the foreign relations volumes of the united states, for folks who did not know them, the official composites of u.s. foreign policy history written about 25 or 30 years after, when classified information could be incorporated and brought back into the public. these volumes focused on vietnam. i was at this event with an, kissinger, and richard holbrooke one of the keynote speakers because he was on the ground -- doing civil society development. his job today in afghanistan is much like when his career began in vietnam. i asked him about differences and similarities. he went to the differences, which really has to do with what triggered this reaction, what triggered the government in afghanistan being toppled by the united states after supporting al qaeda and asia before al

qaeda but then he went through along list that were structural similarities. i think he was skeptical of our ability to do this and i think he believed the reconciliation approach, beginning to deal with the people we were fighting was going to be the only way out of this. i really wish we had a few more years with him because i think he would have been absolutely the right guy to lead those negotiations and get them to a political outcome. host: what do you think the impact will be on the afghan- pakistan strategy for the administration? guest: i think it is hard to say. it leaves a huge, gaping hole. i think richard was a tenacious boys for the non-military dimensions of what needed to done -- tenacious voice for the non-military dimensions of what needed to be done.

women's rights, self- determination. he wrestled -- the u.s. government can be so dysfunctional but he wrestled this dysfunctional government to begin talking to itself internally. he had people -- people from the department's agriculture, usaid, defense, cia, all in this team that would make a couple of times a week -- i was invited to some -- and he made things happen that one not happening. i am sure somebody like barney rubin and someone else will be appointed to take on this role as envoy, but it is hard for me to imagine that we have anyone else on the bench as results oriented and results achieving as holbrooke, who has got -- i described holbrooke saying very few times when you are meeting anyone, even senators and presidents and heads of state, the people who make their own

weather. he was not a passive guy who waited for circumstances to be good for him. he made circumstances happen. i think that is the kind of person that we need in the afghanistan-pakistan portfolio. and i don't see them. and frankly, i had hoped he would of been elevated in the next two years to take even more of america's foreign policy problems. host: you mentioned who might replace him in that capacity, mr. rubin. who is he and what what his relationship to mr. holbrooke? >> barney rubin is adviser to the state department. one of the leading experts on afghanistan and pakistan. he has been part of this network of talents, different parts of the u.s. government. he is someone who has been a key adviser and architect, i think, of the civil society approach to afghanistan in

terms of how to build a structure is to last. and he knows all the players. it just one of america's top people. i think he is an extraordinarily talented man. there may be others who have great experience, both -- we call of the nation building portfolio, but granular understanding of tectonics and who are very complicated. afghanistan is a place where we are spending about $120 billion a year in a country with $40 billion gdp, engaged in a bit of a war and power struggle internally and also a place where you have a proxy war between india and pakistan. so, it is an extraordinarily complex, brutal neighborhood and barney rubin is one of the leading experts on the area. host: the president along with his national security team is

assessing an expected to release on thursday their assessment of the situation in afghanistan. what do you think mr. holbrooke's contribution would be to that report? guest: i think richard was loyal, but i think behind closed doors, looking 25 are 30 years and classified documents getting them to wikileaks before richard shared in this afghanistan the view, i think he would be saying, on one hand, we are making anecdotal progress but not system at progress in certain areas, getting girls to go to school, helping people feel like they are greater stakeholders and getting greater converging of -- poppy growing into other crops that are lucrative for folks. when it came as -- came to the broad area of getting to the tipping point, i think richard

would be highly skeptical of the over-militarization of our response. that the training of forces and continued lack of confidence and trust in the way the u.s. was approaching is challenged and the clunking this and very large military footprint we have is undermining our ability to achieve success. that is what i guess he would have said. and when the president announces what he is going to announce, i personally think he will be kicking the can down the road a bit. i think richard will be there where joe biden and some others were not, that we have to work much more on the political dimensions of this and there are things we could be doing with the $120 billion we are spending per year that were not -- to create more of a lasting and an impact was greater traction. host: you knew him well. what do you think his legacy

will be? guest: i think he will be looked at as one of the most important and competent foreign-policy diplomats. i was trying to explain to people that it was kind of like the babe ruth of the foreign- policy -- home-run hitter. he was a big thinker. he did not get lost and distracted by the trivial. he was a cultivator and manipulator of power. he was one of the big, iconic forces in u.s. foreign policy on the level of henry kissinger, scowcroft, eagleburger, but -- and those three are still around. richard was younger and unfortunately gone today. but he was of their league and had an extraordinary impact on america's national security portfolio. he delivered results and he taught people on the left -- the democratic party, on the humanitarian and global just the side of foreign-policy equation

how to think more systematically and more results-oriented way than i think people and as our arena often do. so i think he was extraordinarily important as a model of behavior and thinking. a lot of people who don't like richard holbrooke, who find him brusque, egotistical, but i would remind people in my mind he was a chameleon. if he could being what they call a bulldozer but that does not describe him that at all. he could be equally soft, highly diplomatic and complex and move cautiously depending o on what hypothank you for your time. >> state department stokesman p.j. crowley said ambassador richard holbrooke spoke about his mission in the meas right

before his surgery. this briefing from the state department lasts about 20 minutes. >> the secretary and minister will sign a partnership framework which again highlight ours mutual commitment to combating h.i.v. aids in south africa. the south african government has made great strides in the fight against hiv-aids and we look forward to deepening our already strong cooperation. also the afternoon the secretary will host her annual diplomacy at home for the holidays event, honoring the families and loved ones of officers on unaccompanied tours that will occur in the ben franklin dining room. the ballet will be performing a

selection from the nutcracker. tomorrow morning, the sec are retear will host a town hall here at the department to discuss the release of the first quadrenall diplomacy review titled leading through civilian power. i think it's open to coverage coverage. -- to coverage. the town hall will be at 11:15 in the atchison auditorium. following that, tomorrow afternoon, we'll have a briefing here on the record to kind of go through the particular details but at the town hall, the secretary will be joined by usaid administrator shaw, and also undersecretary of management pat kennedy. deputy secretary steinberg left washington this morning, leading a high level delegation to beijing over the next couple of days. the delegation will conduct consultations with senior

chinese officials on bilateral and regional issues including developments on the korean pence la. while there, secretary steinberg and also senior director jeff bader of the nss will discuss preparations for president hu-jin tao's visit. special envoy scott grayson is traveling between sudan and qatar. tonight he'll join joint chief mediator of the darfur peace process jabril bosole and tomorrow he'll join with representatives of the darfur

movement and sudan as we continue to press parties there to improve conditions on the ground in darfur. a travel announcement for you, phil gordon, our assistant secretary for european and eurasia affairs will travel over the next few days to represent the united states at the geneva 14 discussions on georgia. returning to afghanistan and pakistan, the secretary, i think the national security council meeting to finish the review process on our afghan and pakistan policies is still going on as we speak. the secretary is joined at that meeting by frank rogero who in light of richard holbrooke's passing, has moved up to be acting special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. he will lead the structure that

richard holbrooke constructed and will serve as one of his finest legacies assisted by two deputies, dan feldman and vikrum singh. a number of leaders from around the world from president sada are ri, president karzai, foreign minister korechi, this morning have expressed their condolences. this morning, the secretary had a brief conversation with special representative of india following up on a meeting she had with him and richard holbrooke in recent days. i should note that a lot of media coverage this morning about the interaction between ambassador holbrooke and his

medical team as he was preparing for surgery on friday , i've consulted with a number of folks who were in the room, there was a lengthy exchange, ambassador holbrooke and the medical team reflecting richard's relentless pursuit of the policy that he had helped to craft and was charged by the president and the secretary with carrying out, at one point, the medical team said, you've got to relax and richard said, i can't relax, i'm worried about afghanistan and pakistan. and then after some additional exchanges, the medical team finally said, tell you what, we'll try to fix this challenge while you're undergoing surgery and he said, yeah, see if you can take care of that, including ending the war. but certainly it says two

things about richard holbrooke in my mind, number one, he always wanted to make sure he got the last word. and secondly, it just showed how he was singularly focused on pursuing and advancing the process and policies in afghanistan and pakistan to bring them to a successful conclusion. last night, upon learning of his death, i went back and reread his remarks in september when we hosted here at the state department a conference on vietnam for which richard was one of the keynote spokers -- speakers and you could tell in his remarks how the lesson he took from vietnam was the need for an integrated approach to a significant challenge he certainly incorporated those lessons into his work as the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. the sraf structure that will continue on in his absence

combines individuals and experts from across government, incorporates international partners into the structure, it is expressly the kind of organization he felt was absent in vietnam and for which he has built a crack team that will continue the policies that the administration pursues within the context of afghanistan and pakistan. >> in terms of organizationally, is it anticipated that frank rue jer roe will become -- ruggiero will become the head? >> it's a fair question. obviously we'll be looking at that. he's assumed the acting srap responsibility, he's with the secretary at the white house as we speak. as to what happens in the long-term, i think it's too early to tell. >> whone you say, we'll be looking at that, does that mean you're looking at candidates?

>> this is -- these are -- it's a fair point. these are decisions to be made in the future. >> but also, organizationally, is it expected that the organization, whoever happens to be at the top of it in this building, will stay the same? >> yes. the structure will carry on, as you see, not only the president and secretary name richard holbrooke as special representative, now, i forget the number, i think it's well over, it might be 50 countries have emulated this approach and had their own, have appointed their own special representatives to focus on this. so this structure will carry on and it will be ably led for the foreseeable future by frank ruggiero. >> the remarks that you -- the exchanges that you just

recounted between ambassador holbrooke and some of his medical team, were those meant to be direct quotes? is that paraphrasing? >> there's no transcript. i consulted with more than one person in the room. their recollections are similar but their phraseology was not identical. i would caution about saying, this is precisely what he said. the context simply was, as you -- those of youmark of you in the room knew richard very well, a relentless figure. he was already saying, i've got a lot of work to do and the medical team was trying to, you know, to get him to prepare for the surgery and so it was a humorous repartee with the medical team as described to me but they promised to try to fix

the challenge while he was in surgery. >> i want to say i pay tribute to the great ambassador holbrooke, he was very joyful, always answering questions, very helpful in every way. every time we had a meeting, he would always call on me, talk to me. it's a very sad day, especially for pakistan, they were depending on him, he was always there in any circumstances. my question is, do we see any change in any policy in any way because of this? >> well, obviously the president on thursday, joined by secretary clinton and secretary gates will announce the results of the administration's review of the policy as it's been described. we'll make minor adjustments or tweaks but expect that the review will continue to affirm

the policy which ambassador holbrooke helped to develop with the help of the -- on behalf of the president and has been charged to carry out. s the policy, clearly, we're not going to pretend that you can easily replace someone of richard holbrooke's stature or personality, but we will don't pursue the policy as richard would want us to do. to your first point, i think it's a reflection of the fact that today only mr. lumbaw, who was richard ears counterpart, india's national security advisor, has set in a letter of condolence to richard's widow, but also foreign secretary rau, the foreign minister of japan,

i'm just reading down a very lengthy list of people who have checked in already through the course of the day. from as his many contributions over the year, not only in south asia, asia, going back to his time in an earlier administration as assistant secretary for eastern asia affairs and also clearly -- the president of georgia, richard spent a lot of time focused on georgia both in and out of office. so it is a profound loss for us but we will continue to pursue the policies his fingerprints are all over. >> one of the news reports says that his last words were that you need to stop this war. >> i just covered that. i want to caution that there was no recorder in the room, i

think the context was you know finishing the job. which of course our policy is, you know, to have a civilian and military effort. there is a war going on. we believe strongly that the action of the past year richard whole heartedly supported is happening in effect on the ground. but by that same token, the strategy as it was formulated calls for also significant civilian effort which richard was charged with overseeing as well as the -- an afghan led process to end hostilities. so this was richard's relentless focus up until his passing yesterday. >> will the two deputys

continue? >> rich areard, as we said, his legacy in terms of building a talented, effective team has worked across interagencies and across governments and around the world to focus this international effort on afghanistan and pakistan. that structure will carry on and you know, dan and bikrum will be supporting frank ruggiero as he serves as acting ambassador. >> [inaudible] >> he called to express his condolences personally but also to say that he had some followup action that, from his last interaction with the secretary and ambassador holbrooke. >> what was the followup action?

>> hamid karzai called and expressed condolences but he had less pressure and policy approach than mr. holbrooke had would work in afghanistan. is there recommendation for that? >> i think it's too early to tell what changes will be made, not so much in the policy, but there will be a change in personal approach than is inevitable. as we said at the start of the briefing. richard holbrookemark have described him as one of a kind figure. i think that's a fair description. his experience is unique in terms of interactions ranging from vietnam to the balkans to congo to eastity mor and he brought that -- to east timor and he brought that perspective to the challenge of

afghanistan-pakistan. whoever succeeds him will bring a fresh set of eyes and unique ex-peernings but certainly no one can question richard holbrooke's determination and drive and it had a measurable effect on the people that he interacted with. and the outreach by president karzai both over the weekend as he was in the hospital, the foreign minister and others, is greatly appreciated. >> george mitchell met today with president obama, i think? >> -- with president abbas today? >> he met with president abbas following up with a meeting with prime minister netanyahu today. president obass will be on his way to cairo as will george mitchell. there's a follow-on committee

meeting won the arab league, i believe, tomorrow. we'll be looking for the arab league to continue to support this effort. senator mitchell, the peace effort. senator mitchell, before he returns to the united states will also make stops in brussels and paris late they are week. >> when you say -- what specifically would you like to see out of the arab league meeting? >> well, the support that -- statements of support that have come through previous meetings, we think, have been very valuable. they embody the support that we've tried to build and i think successfully have built within the region, so we're looking for a continuation of that support, encourage optometrist continue through this process and there'll be follow-on meetings next week at the working level, george

mitchell's deputy david haile will have -- i think he had a follow-on meeting today, there'll be follow-on meetings next week at the working level on the substance inside the process. >> but, i mean are are you looking for the arab reeg to tell abbas or give abbas, to endorse him returning to direct talks? or are you looking for something else? >> we're looking for support. if -- i don't want to prejudge what the arab league will say tomorrow but their statements of support earlier this year have opened the door for direct gos. we will continue to seek and encourage that kind of support as we move ahead. >> what about pulling out of

direct talks? >> well, we're cognizant of the fact that there are not direct talks. we continue to pursue a framework agreement, as we've said. we believe that in order to successfully reach a framework agreement -- >> we're going to leave this to go live to the u.s. house. mens are coming back for votes on bills debated earlier. coming up, votes on designating a historic site in massachusetts among other votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall to suspend the rules and pass s. 1405 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1405, an act to redesignate the longfellow national historic site, massachusetts, as the longfellow house washington's headquarters national historic site. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes

objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order.

members, please take your conversations off the floor. the chair is prepared toll entertain one-minute requests. members, please clear the well. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. will the gentleman suspend? will members please take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you madam speaker. the commonwealth of pennsylvania celebrated its 223rd year as the second state to be admitted to the new united states of america. its history varied from the natives who met dutch explorers in 1609 to william penn who founded philadelphia in 1682. that fair city served as the nation capital from 1790 to 1800. the first and second continental congresses met there and george washington survived valley

forge. the constitutional convention met in philadelphia. as we became a nation, the state grew and produced iron and mill grain, steam both on its rivers and drilled the first successfully oil well. we have gone from the production of oil and steel to the new boom in the natural gas production. i congratulate the 223 years and allows the commonwealth to prosperity and help the nation with its energy needs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. it's my pressure to rise on the floor of the house and

congratulate the texas southern university fighting tigers who won the competition in birmingham ham, alabama against alabama state. congratulations to coach, athletic, the board of regents and our outstanding football players who invested in integrity in doing the right thing. let me thank the students, the band, all of those who came to cheer. i have the great privilege of being there in birmingham ham -- dirming ham, alabama and we look forward to a greater understanding of who texas southern university is. a great institution, educating young people and now we can call them the fighting tigers, the 2010 winners of the championship. fighting tigers, congratulations to all of you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from minnesota rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. i'm proud to congratulate minnesota children's hospital and clinics to being named the top hospital. not long ago, i had a chance to visit children's and i saw firsthand how their commitment to improve safety is second to none. they have helped patients achieve one of the lowest rates of hospital-acquired infections in the nation and reduce complications and improve patient care. minnesota has been ahead of the curve when it comes to health care from medical technologies to continually striving to create the most efficient health care system. our hospitals have earned a reputation for excellence and innovation in health care. congratulations to minnesota children's hospitals and clinics and thanks for your efficiency to provide the best possible care.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: any further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. danny davis of illinois for today, mrs. mcmorris rogers of washington for today and the balance of the week and ms. woolsey of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. jones: madam 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, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, mr. burton, today, december 15, 16, 17, five minutes each. mrs. ros-lehtinen today and

december 15 and 16. mr. flake, december 15 and 16, five minutes each. lincoln diaz-balart, december 15 and 16, five minutes each. mr. mcclintock today and december 15 for five minutes each. mr. smith of new jersey today for five minutes, mr. gingrey, december 15 for five minutes. mr. poe, december 17 for five minutes. mr. jones december 17 for five minutes. and mr. gormente, td, mr. gohmert for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent that today following the 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

extraneous material. myself for five minutes, john conyers of michigan. ms. marchesy kaptur of ohio for five minutes. mr. courtney, connecticut of five minutes. mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes. ms. jackson lee of texas for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each, mr. poe of texas. mr. jones: i ask that i may take my time now. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from north carolina will be recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: madam speaker, thank you very much. the war in afghanistan continues

to prove to be an impossible task. enough is enough. america is spending $7 billion a month on the war to break it down further, that's approximately $233 million a day on a war with no end to it at all. madam speaker, our reequipment alone will cost in excess of $13 billion just to bring it back to the same position prior to going into iraq and afghanistan. it is impossible to absorb this amount of money particularly with the debt this country has and the fact that we can't pay our own bills without borrowing money from china, japan and u.a.e. afghan president karzai stated he and i will quote, three enemies, taliban, the united states, the international community. he also said in the "washington post" article that if he had to choose sides he would choose the

taliban. this is what our young men and women are dying for. i have on the floor with me today a photograph taken of the air force honor guard at dover air force base escorting the remains of an american hero off the plane. madam speaker, this continues to be a cost that is just not worth the cost of our young men and women dying and not worth the cost that it is costing the taxpayer. in addition, i read another article that i would like to quote from, an ap article, no decisive victory one year into the afghan surge. it got my attention. in the article, a citizen of afghanistan stated, and i quote, every day that passes, the security situation is getting worse. the government is not in a position to bring peace. every day the taliban are getting more powerful than the government. madam speaker, again today, i have this on the floor because in my mind, since we don't draft

young men and women any more to fight wars and it is a volunteer service and they are doing a magnificent jobs but four, five, six deployments, suicides and divorces are up. last week, we had six americans killed in a bombing in afghanistan. we continue to repeat history. this case of afghanistan history will show that no nation has ever conquered afghanistan. it will always be a vast country of 1400 different tribes. what are we trying to do? why are we continuing this war effort? i join my friend jim mcgovern and in both parties that are saying to the president, please, mr. president, we think, don't stay there four more years because it's not worth it. madam speaker, after 10 years going on 10 years of being in afghanistan, we continue to see no end to this commitment that in my humble opinion is not worth one american life.

madam speaker, as i do frequently on this floor, i would like to close by asking god to please bless our men and women in uniform, please bless our men and women in uniform and ask god in his loving arms who has given a child dying in iraq and afghanistan and bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in your eyes. give wisdom, strength and courage to president obama that he will do what is right for this country. and god please continue to bless america. i yield back. mr. conyers: i want to thank the gentleman for his contribution tonight and associate myself with his excellent statement and remarks. >> i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, will be recognized for five minutes.

mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: madam speaker, and members of the house, i rise to point out that a very important consideration is about to take place in the next three days dealing with the senator paul simon water for the world act. its main responser is the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, it has 97 co-sponsors and i want to commend the bipartisan spirit in which this bill has been put forward because we have no less than one, two, three, four,

five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 members of the house that belong to the minority that are co-sponsors and then the other body we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight members of that distinguished body who are in the minority there, plus two independent senators that have joined us. and why? because we have been working on this question of water for the continent of africa and the states and the millions of people there suffering and in haiti and we have a very rare opportunity in these next

several days. the other body has passed the measure and i stand before the house tonight to urge that it be taken up here as soon as possible. you know, as we gather for the holiday season, we're giving thanks for family and friends, but what may be unconsidered and unmentioned is an appreciation for access to the water and adequate sanitation, something that's taken for granted in our great country. and so i rise to remind us that there are 884 million people across the planet who went

without access to clean water this year and 2 1/2 billion men, women and many, many children who went without adequate sanitation, without access to these basic building blocks. many of the people of underdeveloped nations will likely have been left without the ability to work because of health problems and that hamper productivity and discourage economic investment. the countries of the world, including our great nation, has come together to say that we can do better. and so a set of shared goals intent on the millennium development goals have set

specific targets relating to increasing access to water and sanitation by 2015. with these goals we and the international community have pledged to have by 2015, to cut in half the proportion of people who are unable to reach forward or come into possession of safe drinking water. think of it. and many of these are children. that's the worst part of it all. and as this congress draws to a close we have a sensitive opportunity to make good on that promise, important legislation entitled the water for the world

act, h.r. 2035 has already passed in the other body. we need it here and if enacted this bill could help 50 million people over the next six years. please join me in helping move this legislation across the finish line. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: and provide millions of our fellow world citizens with the gift of water. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. ms. ros-lehtinen from florida requests five minutes and will be recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. i would like to honor a great public servant and a dear friend, congressman lincoln diaz-balart, who after 17 years of distinguished service to our

south florida community here in congress is retiring. the house of representatives is indeed losing a great man and a dedicated leader. lincoln diaz-balart has left a legacy that is extensive and worthy of praise. he has led a life guided by his principles and he has not wavered in his conviction. convictions based on his love for this great country and the freedom that it embodies. lincoln's story is truly an american story. having fled the castro regime with his family, he became a fierce and staunch defender for human rights and the rule of law throughout the world. he became a voice for those whose own voices are sigh lentsed -- silenced by repressive government. his commitment to public service is a testament to not only his character but to the valuable lessons that he learned from his father.

the courage thatraphyial demonstrated as he fought against -- that rafael demonstrated as he fought against castro's tactics left a profound impact on his son, lincoln. it instilled in lincoln a sense of duty and a fierce urgency to help others. from the beginning of his life in public service, lincoln devoted himself to aiding those less fortunate. early in his career, he used his expertise as an attorney to assist south florida's most vulnerable by providing free legal services to the poor. he also served as an assistant state attorney in miami-dade county. lincoln began his career in politics by being elected to the florida house of representatives in 1986 and later to the florida senate in 1989. and then in 1992 he was elected to our body, the u.s. house of representatives. i have enjoyed working with lincoln as we have tackled the issues that have been of vital importance to our south florida

communities. and two of his proudest moments, madam speaker, were the passage of the nicaraguan adjust and -- adjustment and central american relief act, both of which he helped author. the helms-burton act helped strengthen and codified into law the embargo against the castro dictatorship. and the nicaraguan adjustment and central american relief act granted temporary protected status to hundreds and hundreds of refugees who were fleeing repressive governments in central america. another proud moment came in 1997 when lincoln helped secure legislation that extended s.s.i. benefits to so many legal immigrant families. lincoln has also been a tireless advocate for providing hispanic youth the resources necessary to compete in a global economy. recognizing that the hispanic community has and will continue to contribute much to our great nation, lincoln helped create

the congressional hispanic leadership institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that provides hispanic youth with the opportunities to interact with leaders in the public and private sectors. its global leaders congressional internship program has helped hundreds of hispanic students expand their professional horizons and enhance their understanding of governments and businesses. lincoln will be missed in congress, but i know that south florida will continue to count him as a leader. he will soon begin to work closely with the group, rosa blanka, or white rose. this organization was formed by his father in order to counter the totalitarian and collectivism objectives of the castro regime. as he begins this new stage in his professional and personal life, i know that our entire south florida community as well as my esteemed colleagues in congress wish him and his family, his dear wife christina

and his sons, nothing but the best. god speed, my friend. thank you, madam speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, will be recognized for five minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, yesterday virginia district court judge henry hudson's decision, striking down one provision of the affordable care act, has generated a lot of noise in the last 24 hours. opponents of health care reform are celebrating as if the whole law were struck down. even though judge hudson refused the commonwealth of virginia's request to strike down the entire law and judge hudson' refused the commonwealth of virginia's request to stop implementation of the health care bill, which has been proceeding since last march. thank goodness the judge had enough common sense not to stop the health care bill's important protections for families and patients that have been implemented since last march.

such as dependence coverage which employers all across america have been implementing since last july, giving families the opportunity to keep children covered and their families' health insurance plan up to age 26. such protections like the elimination of insurance company rescissions of coverage, the practice of denying claims after the fact, many times after patients have had a surgery or have had treatment. such as the $250 payments which seniors who fell into the part d doughnut hole received in 2010. such as the 50% discount for brand name medications with seniors in the doughnut hole will start to receive starting january 31, starting with the medicare coverage for vaccinations for flus which the new health care bill will provide starting on january 1. such as the early retiree re-insurance program which employers all across the country, private plourns, as well as public employers, are using to stabilize age 55 and up

retirement health benefits, including 96 plans just in the commonwealth of virginia alone. for all the crowing and boasting by opponents of health care reform, there was less there than meets the eye. but there is no doubt that the judge did strike down an important part of the bill, namely the shared responsibility provision, the requirement that nearly all americans carry health insurance, a provision which two other district court judges, one in virginia and one in michigan, upheld as a proper exercise of congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. judge hudson rules that this provision doesn't, quote, fit within the letter or spirit of the constitution. well, mr. speaker, -- madam speaker, there is a long, long history of supreme court cases which have held exactly the opposite of what judge hudson wrote. indeed, anthony scalia, the leader of conservative forces on the u.s. supreme court himself wrote, that congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce in a to -- and it possesses every power

needed to make that regulation effective. using justices scalia's interpretation of the commerce clause, it is clear that this bill's provision to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusion, the practice by insurance companies for denying coverage for people with cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic conditions, which require a pooling mechanism which the shared responsibility requirement was designed to accomplish, clearly fits within justice sclia's definition of the commerce clause. in fact, we know this from real life experience. seven states tried to enact a guaranteed issuance law requiring insurance companies to ensure all people regardless of pre-existing conditions and what happened was that rates went through the roof. only one state was able to implement a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions, that was the state of massachusetts, which was coupled with a shared responsibility mechanism and as a result insurance premiums fell and the individual -- in the individual market by 42%.

in terms of what's happening in the health insurance market could not be clearer. the trade organization representing america's health insurance industry looked back in 2008 after the election and made it clear that a share responsibility mandate requirement is essential to actually executing and performing real reform in the insurance market. allowing people to enter the market and exit the market when they get sick and when they get better is like insuring a burning building. the fact of the matter is, the judge's decision, despite the fact that conservative judges like antonin kaka -- scali -- like antonin scalia have regulated -- would allow congress to make sure its goal of eliminating pre-existing conditions can take place. the health insurance industry knows over the last five years

the collapse occurring in that marketplace because of rising premiums. i come from the state of connecticut. we have aetna, cigna, united health care. these are the largest plans in the country that are selling to employers an they have they have seen the percentage of coverage across america declined, not since the passage of the health care bill but going back to 2005. this measure is designed to stabilize that private health insurance market. madam speaker in a few short week, new members of congress will be sworn into office, they'll be given a pin that gets them in the build -- a pin that gets them in the building, a voting card and they'll be able to enroll in benefits. taxpayer subsidies, affordable rates and page 49 makes it clear that pre-existing conditions will not be imposed against them. the people of this country deserve the same type of coverage. it is my hope as the appellate

court's review of that decision yesterday they will uphold the act to stabilize the insurance market. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. mcclintock of california. you are recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam speaker. in the aftermath of the attack on september 11 a young man from roseville, california, answered his country's call to duty and volunteered to take the war against radical islam from our shores to theirs. his name was shaun anthony silva. this nation survives today and remains safe today because of the idealism, the patriotism, the heroism, and the sacrifice of young heroes like sill is a who volunteered to defend us. today they are the first line of defense between tyranny and

terror in the middle east and enlightened civilization around the world. we in the house defend the principles of liberty and justice in this chamber every day with our words. men like shaun silva defend them with their lives. on the night of october 9, 2003, private shaun silva defended these principles with his life. to understand the character of this young man you need to understand what led up to that night. shaun was a young person who saw his country attacked and instinctively rose to defend her. he saw his countrymen threatened and instinctively rose to shield them. when shaun told his parents, rich and and donna, that he wanted to enlist. they were obviously quite concerned. his mother war areried shaun would be dispatched to the middle east within weeks of boot camp. shaun's reply was simple. mom, i'm ready. he wanted to be an army scout. always leading, always in motion, always protecting the

path of his comrades. sergeant timothy sloan of the army's roseville, california, recruiting office, remembered that shaun, quote, wanted to be out doing things, he didn't want to be sitting behind a desk. ultimately he was assigned to the second armored cavalry regiment in louisiana and from there he shipped out to iraq. the night of october 9, 2003, he had already returned from one treacherous patrol and was scheduled for another the next day. a night patrol was unexpectedly ordered and shaun volunteered to go right back out onto the deadly streets of sadr city even though it wasn't his turn. his commander reminded him he'd done much more than duty required and shaun smiled and said, i want to learn to do my job. shaun's patrol was ambushed and he gave what lincoln called the last full measure of devotion. at normandy, the chapel bears a

tribute to those who, quote, endured all and gave all, that justice among nations might prevail and that mankind might enjoy freedom and inherit peace. at the age of 23, shaun silva did exactly that. shaun would have turned 30 this year. no doubt he'd be married with children now with a promising career, getting ready for the holidays with his friends and family. instead, his chair remains empty at the family table. friends still leave messages for shaun at the fallen heroes website. there's one in particular that stands out in this season. comes from a little girl in fort jackson, south carolina, whose father survived that terrible night. it reads, thank you, silva, for protecting my daddy. he is here today because of direct actions that you have done. thank you so much. sadr city is no longer besieged,

its streets bustle with commerce and enterprise and young people look forward to raising their own families and starting their own careers. they do so solely because of the sacrifice made by men like shaun silva. that sacrifice is ongoing for shaun's family every single day. i met shaun's father at a memorial day event this year. he speaks of his son's death as if it were yesterday. time does not heal the wounds borne by our gold star families. for them, every day is the day that the casualty officer came to call. we owe it to these families to honor what lynn -- lincoln called the cherished memory of the loved and lost. we owe it to these fallen heroes, as shakespeare said to see what their story shall the good man teach his son. we owe it to ourselves, our children, and our nation to remember how precious is the freedom and peace that their

sacrifice has purchased. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from yerg, mr. defazio. mr. defazio. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to assume the time of mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, several years ago, they sent us to a civility conference because they didn't think that democrats and republicans were getting along well enough in the congress and i have never forgotten something our first speaker said, david mccullough, the great historian, told a story about a russian vis tore who came into the house gallery in 1948 and watched for a while and then he went out and shook his head and he said, the

house is a strange place he said a man stands up and says absolutely nothing, no one pays any attention and then everyone disagrees. and they say there is a little bit of truth in the best humor and i guess there is some truth in that humor, but david mccullough was kind enough to go on from there, and say, but if he had a chance to live his life over again and he could choose what he wanted to do, he would choose to be a member of that wild and raucous bunch known as the united states house of representatives. i think today, because of some of the television talk shows, that many people around the country think that we all dislike each other or that we hate each other at times or that democrats and republicans just don't get along at all. but that is not true at all and i think for the great, great majority of members, all of us

get along really well with everyone, regardless of party and all of us consider it a great privilege and honor to serve in the united states house of representatives. mr. duncan: we are losing many, many good members from both sides of the aisle this year because of retirements, running for other offices or for other -- all sorts of reasons and there are many other members, both democrats and republicans, who are good friends of mine who are leaving to whom i should pay tribute. but i rise tonight to pay special tribute to a very special man. that is congressman james oberstar of minnesota. in my entire 22 years in this congress, i have served on the transportation and infrastructure committee. i had chances a cup -- a couple of chances in my early years to move to other committees and i

think people were surprised i didn't take one or -- either one of those offers. but i enjoyed serving on the transportation and infrastructure committee. it was originally tchailed public works and transportation committee, in part because it was considered to be the most bipartisan or nonpartisan committee probably in the congress. it was often said there's no such thing as a republican highway or a democratic highway and on many, many things, people on both sides of the aisle on that committee worked together to help build america. certainly congressman oberstar was one of the great leaders of that committee through his entire time in the congress. jim oberstar served for 11 years on the committee staff, rising to the position of staff director. he then has -- he then served -- began his service in the house

and continued to serve for the past 36 years. it's an astounding figure to think that a man worked on this one committee for 47 years of his life. but he has done so with great honor and distinction. in fact, i think almost everybody knows that there is no one in the congress and probably never has been anyone in the history of the congress who has known transportation issues and understood them and worked on them longer and harder and with more effectiveness than jim oberstar. at one point, he was chairman of the aviation subcommittee. in 1994, after the election, the republicans took control and i had the honor of becoming the chairman of the aviation subcommittee and i served for six years in that position, which was the maximum allowable on our side. when i took over as chairman of the aviation subcommittee, i had

frequently heard jim oberstar referred to as mr. aviationism went to him and asked for his help. he helped me and guided me and gave me advice that to this day i appreciate very much and he did that in a very kind and humble way. and then of course in the last four year he reached the pinnacle and became chairman of that committee, a committee that he loves and he has been a great chairman and i think he has tried to help everyone on both sides of the aisle. i wanted to rise and pay tribute to a man i consider to be a great american and a great member of congress, congressman james oberstar. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of covel. -- of california. mr. gohmert of texas. ms. jackson lee of texas.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. bartlett: thank you, madam speaker. let me first note the press clippings today that caught my eye, kind of signs of the time. one of them talks about a -- a 1,900 page omnibus appropriations bill that's being prepared. you know there will be no one person in the country that has read all of that bill. and i think the mirn people -- the american people are not

supportive of bringing these huge bills to the floor that nobody has had a chance to read. but that wasn't what caught my eye so much as the subheading earmarkers feast on pork one last time before diet. then in brackets it said it includes the joint strike fighter second engine. i'd like to make a couple of comments on earmarks. i know that they are symbolic of frivolous, wasteful, out of control spending in congress. even though the total amount of money in earmarks is pretty small, they still are symbolically a very big and important issue. i can live without earmarks. i had earmarks, i published them all on my website. none of them have thought to

egrandize me. when i first got to congress i thought that robotics ought to be of increasing importance to the military so i supported, with what is called earmarks, we call them in armed services plus-ups, i supported a little company in carol county. they now are owned by general dynamics and they are now the largest military robotics manufacturing company in the united states, that probably means the largest in the world. and they will tell you that if it weren't for my earmarks, they might not be here. i would note that the unmanned aircraft were earmarks. i would also note that the pentagon fought the aircraft carrier when it was first suggested and it was congress

who pushed the aircraft carrier. i'd like to reflect for a moment on plus-ups in the military which are really fundamentally different from earmarks in other places. you see, if you do an earmark on alternative energy and everybody wants to look green and so just about everybody who does earmarks will have an earmark or two on alternative energy and that money all comes out of the program money for a little alternative energy lab in golden, colorado. they never know how much money they're going to have, they never can really adequately plan or execute a program because their money gets taken with these little green earmarks that so many of our members like to have. that's not what happens in armed services in defense. defense is a bit more than 50% of all of our discretionary spending.

$600 billion or $700 billion. whenever you have that many programs with thatch money involved, there's bound to be some of them that don't go as planned and the money doesn't get spent. so near the end of the year that money is gathered together and we have in the past gone to the chairman of the services and asked them, if you had more money, what would you buy? and they responded, we'd like to have this and that and we'd call these unfunded priorities. and then the members turn in their list of requests and these are all judged against some standards that everybody has agreed on and you don't get all your earmarks, i publish all of mine on my website, you certain i had don't get them all. i can live without earmarks. but i would like to note that the president's budget is one long series of earmarks.

spend money for this, spend money for that, spend money for the other things. put together by people that you have never seen, that you will never see, that are not accountable. now i understand the psychology of earmarks and i'm very supportive of doing away with earmarks but i would like to make a point about plus-ups in defense. you see, the president's budget is at least a year old, it takes a long time to put together that big budget. some parts of it are a couple of years old. which means that all the new technology of the last year can't be in the president's budget. and traditionally we have used plus-ups in defense to make sure that we don't fall behind our potential enemies. so if you would like to make sure that we're always potentially one year behind the

chinese and the russians and just don't have any plus-ups in defense. i'm a big supporter of doing away with earmarks because i think that symbolically they have become poison and they tell the american people that we are out of control and irresponsible. but at the same time i would like to note that we have got to have something to permit us to introduce the latest technology to our military because it can't be in the president's budget. so let's call them plus-ups or something and send earmarks elsewhere but make sure we don't fall behind in defense. another thing that was in the news was the leadership is not going to bring a separate defense altogether days is bill, but they have taken one small part of that bill out, the don't

ask, don't tell. they wonder at the priorities. for the first time in many, many years we're probably not going to have an authorization bill and if we have an appropriations bill, it will be a part of this big 1,900-page omnibus. one might bonder a little about priorities when -- wonder a little about priority when is we're engaged in two wars and we face a resurgent russia and a booming china, that it's maybe not important to pass the defense authorization bill, but it is really important to bring to a separate vote don't ask, don't tell. then there are a couple of articles that i was really pleased to see and we'll talk a little more about those later. but from the national defense magazine, navy takes biofuels campaign into uncharted waters.

and the second headline is that the air force tells biofuels industry to bring it, they want to buy these alternative fuels. there were two articles. one by bidal and one by grace gene and a little later we'll have an opportunity to look at biofuels and their role and why the military is focusing so much on these. and then an interesting article in the "l.a. times," pressure builds in the pass to pass the tax cut package -- in the house to pass the tax cut package. later we'll have an opportunity to look at taxes and should we cut them? we really have a huge debt, getting bigger every day. getting money from our people to bring down this debt is important. so what are the arguments for

cutting taxes? benjamin franklin in 1787 came out of the constitutional convention and he was asked and one of the stories has that it was a lady who asked him that, and i like that story, mr. franklin, what have you given us? what have you brought? and his answer was, a republic, madam. if you can keep it. a very short response. a republic. but i thought we lived in a democracy. we do that pledge of allegiance to the flag and you come to that part that says the republic for which it stands and then we get

up and talk about this great democracy that we live in. what's the difference between a republic and a democracy? before reflecting on that and why it's important to understand that difference, i'd like to turn just a moment looking at benjamin franklin's hope that if you can keep it. i wonder what he thought the biggest threat to this republic, this constitution, would be? i kind of think he wasn't all that concerned about foreign powers that got here across a big ocean in sailboats. i'm sure he had some concern about threats from outside the country. but i kind of think that he might have been more concerned

about threats from within. a republic, madam. if you can keep it. what is the difference between a republic and a democracy? i'd like to use a couple of examples of a democracy to help understand that. two wolves and lamb voting on what they're going to have for dinner would be a democratic process. the majority wins. in a democracy. so what you think is going to happen if the body is made up of two wolves and a lamb and they're voting on what they're going to have for dinner? if it is a democracy there will be lamb for dinner because the majority wants that. if it's a republic and the

constitution or whatever they call the body of laws that they live by says you can't have lamb for dinner, you won't have lamb for dinner. no matter whether the majority wants it or not. because you see it's against the law. in our country we would say it's unconstitutional. i really kind of hesitate to use this next example of a democracy but i hope you'll understand. a lynch mob is really an example of a democracy. isn't the will of the majority being expressed in a lynch mob? aren't you glad you live in a republic where it's not the will or the whim of the majority that controls but the law that controls? i remember back a number of

years ago when i believe it was harry truman nationalized the steel mills. they were going to strike and then it mattered that we wouldn't have any steel made, we had some manufacturing in those days, it wouldn't mat ar whole lot now, would it? and the economy was already in trouble, would be in even bigger trouble if they did that. so harry truman nationalized the steel mills. that was a very popular action, a huge majority of the american people applauded that because that made them, you see, federal employees and as federal employees you can't strike. and that was a hugely popular action. executive order. the supreme court met in emergency session and in effect what they said was that, mr. president, no matter how popular that is, you can't do it. because it's unconstitutional.

now, why is this important? congress is doing a lot of things that are not specifically permitted by the constitution. four years after the constitution was ratified, the bill of rights, they started with 12 amendments and 10 of them made it through the process, 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate and 3/4 of the legislation as we call them, the bill of rights. there was a lot of argument that they really didn't need to do that. because every one of those rights so explicitly imnumerated in the bill of rights was implicit in the constitution itself. we in the congress today involve

ourselves in -- almost -- in almost everything that affects the citizens of the country. we use two different things in the constitution to justify doing that. one of them is to promote the general welfare, that's in the preamble to the constitution itself. it's also repeated in the preamble to the section 8 which is spessfice what the congress can do -- which specifies what the congress can do. and the preamble of the constitution simply says, promote the general welfare. but in the first paragraph of article 1 section 8 it says promote the general welfare of the united states. what they were talking about was the responsibility to make sure that we had a strong country. words changed their meaning.

and their use of the word welfare didn't even come close to our use of the word welfare. when we think of welfare we think of a big organization that handles a lot of money, taking care of people who are in need. then in the bill of rights, the last two amendments seldom referred to, the ninth amendment simply says that essentially all the rights belong to the people and the people have chosen to give a few of those rights to the government. a few days ago i was privileged to spend an hour or so with one of the justices on our supreme court and he gave a very interesting example. he had a piece of paper like this and he tore off a little corner of it.

these are all the rights that we have and he tore off a little corner of it and we're going to give this much to the federal government. just a little. so the ninth amendment reiterates that. it says that e all rights belong to the people except for those few that they give to the government. and then the 10th amendment,s the most violated amendment in the -- and the least referred to amendment in the constitution. the 10th amendment in everyday english, it's written in old english and legalese and you have to kind of interpret but what it says if you can't find it in article i, section 8:00, you can't do it. we do a whole lot of things you

conditioned find in article i, section 8. we use two things to justify that. one is promote the general welfare. if it helps people, it makes things better, we can do it. the second thing we use is what's called the commerce clause, that congress has the responsibility and authority to regulate commerce between the states. there's nothing that doesn't pass over a state line, so you can argue that therefore we can concern ourselves with anything and everything and we do. but then i ask myself the question, if that was how they wanted us to interpret the constitution, why did they put all that detail in article i, section 8? like duties and impose and excises, borrowing money, regulating commerce, that's the one they use.

establish uniform rules of naturalization, laws for bankruptcy, coining money, somehow we gave that away to the fed without amending the constitution, i'm not sure how. provide for the punishment of counterfeiting to establish post offices and post roads, promote science and useful rights, copyrights and patents, constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court, our lower federal court, define and punish felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations. all the rest of it deals with just two things. to declare war, grant letters of marks of reprisal and then the military. the last paragraph, of course, relates to the seat of government, what we call the district of columbia. then it ends. with a paragraph that is used to justify doing anything and everything we want to do. to make all laws which shall be

necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested in the government of the united states. but the 10th amendment says that if you can't find it in article i, section 8:00 you can't do it. -- section viii, you can't do it. there are three big things we do that i can't find there. one is our involvement in education. another is our involvement in health care. except for our military. and the third one is philanthropy. by the way, madam speaker if you'll do a google search for davy crockette, testifies a congressman from tennessee -- davy crockett, he was a congressman from tennessee, you will find a fascinating discussion of philanthropy. we don't have time to do it but he gave a speech on the floor

talking about philanthropy. we support the national institutes of health. we support the national academy of sciences. none of these things are in the constitution. we do them all without amending the constitution. now since these are good things and they help us, why should i be concerned? there's not -- they're not explicitly permitted by the constitution and we haven't amended the constitution so we can legitimately do it. let me tell you why i am concerned. this little country, and we are little, one person out of 22 in the world, and we have a fourth of all the good things in the world. and i ask myself the question, why? what is so special about us that this one person in 22 has a

fourth of all the good things in the world? we no longer are conspicuously the hardest working people in the world. we no longer have the highest respect for technical education. this year, the chinese will graduate seven times as many engineers as we graduate and about half our engineering students are chinese students. we no longer have the most respect for the nuclear family. this year, almost 50% of all of our children will be born out of wedlock. why, then, are we so darn fortunate? that there's one person out of 22 has a fourth of all the good things in the world. you may have other reasons, madam speaker, but i think that our enormous respect for our

civil liberties established a climate in which creativity and entrepreneurship can flourish. if -- i think that if we put at risk the civil liberties, we put at risk who we are. if we can rationalize it because it's a good thing to support the national institutes of health or provide health care or have a department of education that you can then just kind of ignore the constitution. that sets, i think, a very dangerous precedent. because in the future, it may be that a majority of our people will feel that a minority of our people should be denied some of their civil liberties and if we can just rationalize it, we cannot pay any attention to the specifics of the constitution in these other things, why couldn't

that happen to our civil liberties? and because i am so convinced that these civil liberties are are such a huge reason that we are such a favored country, i am very concerned that we shouldn't just ignore the constitution because what you're going to do seems ok and popular and going to help. i remember back when we were congratulating ourselves because we had a budget surplus. we had to raise the debt limit ceiling. and kind of jokingly, i asked our leadership, what are you going to tell the american people all these months you've been telling them we have a budget surplus, now we're voting to raise the debt limit ceiling.

why would we have to raise the debt limit ceiling if we've had a budget surplus? we did have a budget surplus and we did pay down a debt. but it wasn't the national debt. it was the public debt. i suspect, madam speaker, that there are not a large percentage of the american people who know the difference between the public debt and the national debt. the public debt is the wall street debt, the debt we owe to people who have bought our securities, who have loaned us money. the national debt is the sum of the public debt and the trust fund debt. you see, we have about 50 trust funds, two of the biggest ones are medicare and social security, and we have been running surpluses in those, fortunately, because when the baby boomers come online we're going to really need those surpluses, but you know, there's

no money there. you see, this budget surplus was in what we call the unified budget. when we put the trust funds on budget. then we made the perfectly irrational statement that the social security surplus offset the deficit. if you have taken the money that you have taken out of the paychecks of our citizens for medicare and social security and you've spent it which is exactly what we've done, you have incurred another debt. so what we did when we had this surplus, we had -- we paid down the national debt for every dollar of national debt we paid down, there was another dollar increase in the trust fund debt and the sum of those two debts is the national debt, and if we kept our books on the accrual

method, which we require every business with more than something like $1 million in transfers of money during the year, there never was a moment in time, i'm told, that we -- that the national debt really went down. i talk about this tonight because we're going to talk about taxes and what we haven't done and what we should do, i wanted to point out that when congress tells you what the deficit is, add several hundred billion dollars to that. less this year an other years because this year for the first time, there was no surplus in social security. but there was a whole lot of surpluses in other areas. so remember, it's the unified budget and the public debt that they're talking about. but it's the national debt that we need to fund. and that's the debt that determines how much money we owe

and what the interest on that money will be. madam speaker, i thought a lot about taxes. you know, we charged -- if we had a zero percent tax rate, we'd collect no money. and then if we had a 100% tax rate, we'd collect no taxes because nobody would work. if you're going to take all their money. so i thought a lot about what's that magic number? somewhere between zero percent, where you collect no taxes, and 100% taxation, where obviously you collect no taxes because nobody is going to work, somewhere in there is the magic number. what are you -- where you're going to collect the most taxes. obviously, if taxes are too high, 100%, nobody is going to work. if you come town from 100%, people are going to drop out, it's not worth work, the

government takes so much money. what is that magic number where we will not depress the economy and therefore have the biggest are revenue from our taxes? i submit that it's probably less than where we are now. because tax freedom day, i think, is sometime in april, i haven't seen the number for this last year. but government freedom day, that's when you can work the first day so that you can have money to buy your car, pay your mortgage, send your kids to college, that's sometime in july. for a year or two, it was just about july 4, and i thought, how nice. that's a second freedom we now have, we have the freedom to use the money we've made for ourselves. government is not going to take it. but tax freedom day is sometime in april, government freedom day in july. you may have a different perspective but i think that that's kind of a pretty big burden.

as a matter of fact, we may be collecting less revenues from taxes. because the taxes are that height. -- that high. i want to spend the time remaining in talking about these last two articles i mentioned, biofuels and our defense focus on energy. i have some slides here that will help to illuminate this. of course the thing that we're all concerned about now is the economy and taxes. i think that if you don't factor energy in oil particularly, you won't have considered all of the inputs that are going to determine what our economy will be. the first slide that we have here, the first chart, it's several years old, as you can see, 2008, a couple of years old, you can see the highest

price for oil there was less than $100 a barrel, it really went a little after this to $107 a barrel. these two lines here are the lines that compiled by e.i.a., and i.e.a., one of those is a creature of the oced, which we belong, the other is part of the department of energy. they've been pretty consistently agreeing with each other. this starting in 2002 and ending in 2008 represents the amount of oil that the world has pumped and you'll see for about three years before the recession the supply of oil was constant. now with a constant supply of oil and increasing demand, this year china sold more cars to