appreciate the large check you sent us. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i ask passage of this bill, h.res. 1767, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1767. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. holt: mr. speaker. i object to the vote on the grounds a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey makes that motion and pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution h.con.res 335 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 335, concurrent resolution honoring the exceptional achievements of ambassador richard holbrooke and recognizing the significant contributions he has made to the united states national security, humanitarian causes and peaceful resolutions of international conflict. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. berman, and the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, will each control 20 minutes. the chair would ask the gentleman from california is he seeking an amended bill or as introduced. mr. berman: as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the amended version of the bill is not yet at the desk. mr. berman: i believe it's on its way.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair would say to the gentleman from california, the correct copy, as amended, is now at the desk and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution which recognizes and honors the life and career of one of america's most potent diplomatic assets, ambassador richard c. holbrooke, and for opening comments i'd like to

yield to someone who is a close and great friend of his, the chair of the foreign operations subcommittee, the house appropriations committee, the chief sponsor of this resolution that the ranking member and i have joined, mrs. lowey of new york, for such time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.con.res 335, a concurrent resolution in remembrance and appreciation of ambassador richard holbrooke. the passing of ambassador holbrooke on monday, december 13 is a great loss american people. one of our nation's most talented diplomats, richard holbrooke possessed a fierce determination and unsurpassed

brilliance in advocating for american security, diplomatic and development interests around the world in southeast asia, post-cold war europe, at the united nations and most recently in afghanistan and pakistan. his exceptional accomplishments as a peacemaker, diplomat, writer, scholar, manager, mentor will define his legacy as one of the true great foreign policy giants of our time. i was honored and privileged to have known richard holbrooke from his time brokering the deyton peace accords, helping to end the ethnic cleansing and genocide in the balkans, his political, and pursuit of peace

saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in bosnia and help stabilize one of the volatile regions of the world. as representative to afghanistan and pakistan, it was a privilege to work with him as our nation 1/2 gates an intractable situation -- navigates an intractable situation. he served the united states as a tireless advocate, loyal patriot, tenacious fighter for u.s. interests. richard holbrooke was a giant of diplomacy and a trusted voice for me and many other members of congress who valued his counsel. our nation owes him a debt of gratitude for his many years of service. my thoughts and prayers and

deepest sympathies are with his beloved wife, his children, his grandchildren, countless friends and colleagues. we will miss you, richard. rest in peace, my friend. however, i know your wise advice will continue to guide us. i urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution in honor of one of our country's greatest diplomats. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution of which i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor, and i want to thank my good friend from new york, congresswoman nita lowey, for her timely work in authoring this resolution and, of course, to my chairman, mr. berman of

california, as well. the sudden and unexpected passing of ambassador richard holbrooke earlier this week was a shock to all of us. the depth of sadness that we felt at the news was a testament to his exemplary life of service to our country in so many different compass its. ambassador holbrooke was one of the most consequential world diplomats of the last half century and his tireless work in pursuit of united states national interests and international peace have put us all in his debt. his advocacy for peace was, of course, most clearly shown during the conflict in bosnia. his tenacity and force of will brought the waring parties to the negotiation table in deyton, ohio, where he skillfully brokered the accord that ended over three years of

atrocities and bloody conflict. over 100,000 perished in the bod kneean war, and it's impossible -- bosnian war, and it's impossible to say how many lives were saved by ambassador holbrooke in deyton. and that accomplishment would have been enough to mark a diplomatic career with high distinction. it was one of the many facets of his service which continued to the very end of his life. as assistant secretary of state for two regions of the world, east asia and europe, as united states ambassador to the united nations and as u.s. representative -- special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, he made his mark on many issues that remain urgent concerns today. in new york at the u.n. he did much of the heavy lifting on connolly led efforts to rein in u.n. spending, to make more

equityible -- equitable dues paid. sadly, those concerns have returned with renewed urgency with fundamental reforms of the u.n. budget and the anti-human rights council and congress can only hope to have a tenacious principled partner in the future. ambassador holbrooke made his final appearance before our committee on foreign affairs in the spring of last year as u.s. special representative to afghanistan and pakistan. we lament the loss of his matchless skills in those critical regions. we grieve at his passing, but let us honor his service by renewing our commitment to success in afghanistan. at this time we extend our condolences, our thoughts and our prayers to his wife, katia,

and his children. while we mourn the loss of a dedicated public servant, they mourn the loss of a husband and a father. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in this expression of gratitude for the service of ambassador richard holbrooke. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, someone who worked for a very long time on issues with ambassador holbrooke, congresswoman harman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. harman: i'm glad that our colleague, nita lowey, has brought this resolution to the floor. mr. speaker, after learning some encouraging news about

richard holbrooke's continue last weekend, hearing that my friend had died felt like a sucker punch. four days later it still does. i suppose in an ironic way richard would smile at the enormous impact he had on friend and foe alike. he was a life force, a force of nature, someone always operating on multiple levels, on high gear and more than three dimensions. i used to chafe when in the middle of a phone call he would put me on hold to talk to someone else. but i bet he did that to everyone. he was a consummate juggler, the master diplomat. he knew precisely what he was going to tell someone and what he was not. though it takes years to settle on how history will view someone, my guess is richard holbrooke will be considered hands down as the best diplomat of our generation. indeed, he will be in a small

pantheon that includes william jefferson. the private richard was a generous and loyal friend. before joining the obama administration, he chaired the global business coalition on hiv-aids. for a time one of our grandchildren was on its staff. he loved her, and forever asked about her life and her boyfriend. no question the huge staff he built over his many careers over many years is devastated by his untimely death. to his wife, whom he adored, and to the extended holbrooke family, we mourn your loss and our country's loss. i like to think that richard has just put us all on hold while he takes another call. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i also continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. levin: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the speaker of the house of representatives -- mr. berman i yield one toint to the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker: thank you. i commend him and ranking member, soon-to-be chairwoman, ileana ros-lehtinen, for giving us this opportunity to address the resolution presented by our chairwoman, congresswoman nita lowey, who chairs the foreign ops subcommittee. all of you on foreign affairs and foreign ops and appropriations know full well the magnitude of the leader that richard holbrooke was. as i address some personal remarks about him, i want to say how significant it was that he understood the important role that congress plays in our

foreign policy. whether it was as the ambassador to the united nations, whether it was in his work forging a peace agreement, the dayton accord, or in his role now special envoy to afghanistan and pakistan. i would come to capitol hill bringing his tremendous and brilliant mind, his great intellect, his boundless energy, and his sense of humor. he had a tenacity about him that was unsurpassed. his determination was palpable. you could see it in the air when he addressed an issue, you knew that a solution would be found. and he indeed worked very, very hard in all that he did, but he also was a brilliant, great intellect. with the passing of ambassador holbrooke, our country lost a

brilliant and respected diplomat. we have but his life and legacy will continue to effect our search for peace in the world, resolution of conflict, improving relationships among countries. having a valued based american foreign policy. he was a strong fighter for peace throughout the world and advocate for american values. at the united nations. he will be long remembered again for forging the agreement among bitter rivals to end years of bloody sectarian war in the former yugoslavia. now that peace is in the region, it's hard to remember how bitter that fight was. that went on for a long time. when -- i just want to say this aside just to tell you the magnitude of the task he had. when adolf hitler was asked how he learned the power of hatred, he said he learned it by

watching the balkan people who had come to vienna, settled there in some ghettos, and he saw how they interacted among themselves in a very, very bitter way. that gives you a flavor of the attitudes of people in the region. they came to the table in dayton , richard holbrooke understood, he put himself in the shoes of each of these rivals, and was able to forge an agreement. it was quite historic. it was quite historic. again the force of his determination was key to securing peace, restoring hope, and saving lives. it was really monumental. it is thought his work in the balkans saved thousands of lives. today as the resolution states, congress recognizes him for the

monumental contributions he has made to the united states, national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolution of international conflict. again all of us who worked with him admired his great intellect and tenacity to resolve conflict. when we got news of his passing, which was shocking, -- shocking to all of us, we immediately flew a flag over the capitol in that evening in his name. how appropriate, this great patriot, how appropriate that there would be a flag flying in his name over the capitol of the united states. i think that is a tremendous, tremendous tribute. i hope it is a comfort to his wife, our dear friend. many of us, -- us are personal friends to the holbrook defment -- holbrookes, and so many

people throughout the world mourn their loss and the country with a deep, deep sadness and we are praying for their family at this sad time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm very pleased to yield one minute to my colleague from ohio, the state where ambassador holbrooke's most difficult and successful diplomatic effort took place, ms. kaptur, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, my friend, howard berman, for yielding me this minute to use this resolution in recognition of ambassador richard holbrooke as a moment to extend the deepest condolences from the people of ohio, to his

family, to all those whose lives he touched, and try to -- tried to heal. i can remember one time in cleveland ambassador holbrooke during one large gathering walking through meetings with this garrulous nature and full of life and keeping ohio in a very special corner of his heart. i remember how proud he was of his own heritage, of his wife's heritage, and how hard he worked for our country. one can only imagine all those flights from capital to capital to capital trying to piece together the dayton peace accords and his efforts on behalf of peace around the world. he will truly, truly be missed by the people of ohio. i am just very fortunate to be a representative from that state who had the privilege of knowing him and working with him over the years.

america is better, the world is better because of his life. i thank the gentleman for yielding and allowing me this time on the floor today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to -- mr. berman rather than reserving i would like to yield one minute of time to our retiring colleague from california, herself with diplomatic experience, ambassador diane watson. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. watson: mr. speaker, i take great honor in coming and saluting ambassador holbrooke. he was a person that we can all be proud of because among ambassadors he stood above them head and shoulders and represented the will and the

morality of our country around this globe. being a member of that elite corps is something that will always remain deep in my heart and my mind and i had the privilege of serving two years as an ambassador myself. during the six weeks of training that we had, ambassador holbrooke was always held as the standard by which we perform our duties for the united states of america. i offer my condolences to his family and his broad global family from the state of california. i'm very proud to have served with him in that department for the short period of time, but oh, what an experience. may god bless the family and i know he's up there presiding

over all of the matters that will affect our country and bring peace. god bless. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: may i inquire of the speaker whether or not there are any further speakers other than a couple of closing comments, we have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i have no further requests for time. is the gentleman prepared to make ending remarks? so i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: we have heard from the speaker of the house, from the author of the resolution, mrs. lowey, from ambassador

holbrooke's dear friend, a variety of aspects both of his accomplishments and of his nature, and it was quite a series of accomplishments in all parts of the world in diplomatic sphere, in the development assistance sphere, in southeast asia, in the balkans, obviously more recently in south asia. what i would love to do here on the house floor because i think in a way it might best illustrate what i could say about his talents was just to speak to the details of six or seven interventions in times that i dealt with him on a particular project over the years. but i feel like i would be bringing wiki leaks to the house floor were i to go through all of those so i will restrain myself just to say he truly was

one of a kind. we will miss his brilliance, his energy, his ability to play chess, to see the long-term, and the unbelievable force of his personality. with that 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 agree to house concurrent resolution 335, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to s. 3874, the reduction of lead in drinking water act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3874, an act to amend the safe drinking water act to reduce lead in drinking water. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include

extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to manage consideration of s. 3874, the reduction of lead in drinking water act. this is the senate companion to ms. eshoo's bill, the get the lead out act. this bill will update the national lead content standard to nearly eradicate lead in faw sets and fixtures which contribute up to 20% of human exposure according to the e.p.a. in a 21st century america, we have a responsibility to do more to protect our children and families against the lead exposure required through plumbing systems of the the safe drinking water act, which determines the national lead content standard, currently allows up to 8% lead content for faw sets and other plumbing fixtures and limits the amount of lead that can leech from plumbing in the drinking water.

but health studies have concluded that much smaller amounts of lead exposure could have serious impacts on children and adults. including kidney disease, reduced i.q., hypertension, hearing loss, and brain damage. states have recognized this threat and in 2006 california enacted the toughest lead content standard for drinking water faw sets -- faucets, plumbing systems anywhere in the world. since then vermont and maryland have adopted identical laws and the district of columbia and virginia are considering similar legislation. this bill mirrors the california legislation and will provide for a consistent and effective national standard to ensure that no one will be exposed to a serious health threat which can easily be avoided. this legislation has garnered the support of state health officials, numerous children health organizations, prominent national and environmental organizations, local government, scientific associations, and national drinking water

associations. the plumbing manufacturers institute, the association that represents all major faucet companies and other manufacturers of drinking water plumbing fittings, also supports this legislation. . on december 16, this bill passed the senate unanimously with bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to vote for this critical bill in the house today. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, i request such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, good morning. i rise in opposition to the senate bill, 3874, that was introduced by barbara boxer of california. the reduction of lead in drinking water act and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

i want to be clear that simply by opposing this bill i do not support lead in drinking water, obviously. let's clear the air on that. rather, i'm opposed to the manner in which this bill tackles a problem and simply, mr. speaker, the unintended consequences that could result. so bear with me. this legislation allows lead allowed in the manufacturing of certain plumbing fixtures that come in contact with water that all americans drink. however, reports in "the washington post" and testimony before congress suggests that lead service lines are the biggest culprit of leaked lead. people should not mistake this bill as a panacea when other

actions like corrosion protection and treatment including some lead line replacement have just as much, if not more, impact on what this legislation purports to do. second, we need an education component to this bill. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can get an education component part of it. i'm concerned that do-it-yourselfers, much like me, think that their existing faucets are a toxic fountain, simply go to their hardware store to get a new faucet, cut their home piping release -- releasing have water streaming from their faucets with more lead if they had just left the

faucet alone. and third, i know many of this bill support this bill believe we should end disparity standards in much of the states and much of the industry is meeting most of the stringent state standards or is ready to make the move to do so. but, mr. speaker, i'm not convinced. though that this bill will have the preemption of preventing states from enacting laws different from this bill's enactment. 50 states could do that. if the major producers of faucets in this country are already making the kinds of changes that the bill seeks and the bill does not solve this preemption problem, then why do we have to pass a federal bill in the first place? and finally, my colleagues, and most importantly, the congressional budget office estimates for identical provisions in a house bill

projected the cost of the mandate in this bill, introduced by barbara boxer, would be an additional cost to manufacturers, importers or users associated with producing or acquiring compliant proconducts. so based on information from industry sources, c.b.o. wrote on july 27, 2010, that expect that some manufacturers would already, already now be in compliance with the new standard because of existing standards in some states. for example, california, maryland and vermont. however, information from those sources suggest that the incremental cost of manufacturing or importing such products would total hundreds of millions of dollars to the private sector in at least some of the first -- in least and in first five years the mandate is put in effect.

some of those costs could be passed through to end users, including public entities. while the additional costs to state, local and tribal entities could be significant, c.b.o. estimates that those costs would total less than the annual threshold established in the unfunded mandate reform act of 1994 for intergovernmental mandate. now, what does that mean? let me explain. just because it doesn't create unfunded mandates on the united states government, it doesn't mean it's not going to create huge amounts of unfunded mandates on the private sector. in fact, this will be a large cost to the private sector even though the advocates for this bill say there's no unfunded mandates on the government. to be fair, the industry has challenged these figures that the proponents of this bill have suggested, and most companies will just simply pass

their costs along in a highly competitive market. when you look at this bill, the industry is saying that at a maximum the best guess would be almost 3% increase to consumers if and when they need a new faucet, valve or fitting. this is not the kind of disparity that we need. we should be able to reconcile these numbers before american jobs are challenged by this bill. so, mr. speaker, i will allow -- there are probably some very worthy reasons to consider this bill. including perhaps stopping bad products produced overseas from entering the stream of u.s. commerce which we know counterfeit products will be provided. however and unfortunately, the issues i mentioned outweigh the good intentions of this bill that was introduced by barbara boxer from california, and i

urge my colleagues to oppose this passage. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: yeah, mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i'd say to my friend, and he ask my good friend, that the bill passed unanimously in the senate. i know he likes to invoke senator boxer's name a lot. the fact of the matter is every republican and every democrat in the united states senate supported this bill. i'd like to make a couple points. he talks about the lead in the service lines, and that's true. utility companies -- and we have literally dozens of utilities that are in support of this bill -- are already constantly making efforts to get lead out of their lines. what we're trying to do is not to make that an exercise in futility by allowing the faucets to return the lead into the lines that they're working so hard to take out. we talk about preemption. right now the standard is 8%, so that's a maximum.

and the gentleman's correct, a lot of states have gone under that 8% limit, but the new standard that we're proposing, the .25%, is state of the art. that's about as low as you can get based on the technology that we have available today. so in effect, the idea that states would somehow be able to preempt and go below that, just it isn't possible as we speak today. so it deals with the issue. the bill doesn't require people to buy replacements. no one is forced to replace their faucets. and lastly, in dealing with the issue of cost, i have a letter from the plumbing manufacturers association, and i'd like to quote from it. in the one paragraph dealing with costs, he said, it is safe to say that the one-time cost for faucet manufacturers will not be anywhere near the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars that's set forth in the house report for h.r. 5320, the aqua bill.

unfortunately, the faucet industry source for those numbers failed the calculations with the industry representatives prior to providing the estimate to c.b.o. we find those numbers to be unreliable and greatly exaggerated. now, this is coming from the plumbers manufacturers institute. mr. speaker, i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. doyle: so when you put this all together and you see we have a piece of legislation here which passed the senate unanimously and we have an opportunity to set a national standard which is state of the art with the technology that we have today at a cost that the industry has said is minimal and many are already complying with, it seems that it would be a shame to let this opportunity pass to protect the health of millions of americans by making changes that are not onerous on the industry by their own

letter and they endorse the bill and had unanimous support in the senate. i would hope that my colleagues in the house will see fit in a bipartisan fashion to do this for americans, make people more safe, improve the quality of the water that americans drink and do so at a cost that is not onerous to the public and to the industry. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stearns: the gentleman will realize, of course, that oftentimes a bill has a wonderful sounding name on it and bills sometimes pass here by unanimous consent, and low and behold we impback and find that there's unintended consequences. i submit to the gentleman that when the senate passed it they might have done that under the same auspices. and i suspect that if they looked at it carefully, particularly some of the folks over there that i know, they would not have been unanimous

in support of this. also, when you talk about the plumbing manufacturers institute, as you know lots of times when people are quoted down here sometimes, and i'm not saying it's true, but sometimes there's vested interest. we see sometimes on the floor people who are proponents of an issue and low and behold there are some, perhaps indirect, indiscreet, anywhere there might be some, perhaps some vested interest. i have not seen the plumbing manufacturers institute's letters. i suspect that i could find a letter on this side that would refute the plumbing manufacturers institute. in fact, we have many people that have pointed out to us that this is going to increase costs. so your other argument that people will not react, i have seen people react, particularly

young families who perhaps think that there might be lead in the water with their infants and they might overreact. and what happens when new detection levels are achieved. -- levels are achieved? so i would say to my friend that we have here a clear case of a difference of opinion. here we are in 2010 before the christmas holidays and we're still talking about something that i think for the most part -- even you admitted it. you said this. this is your statement. a lot of states are complying or are underneath requirement. if that's true why do we need the bill? you're even making my argument of why do we need this bill that has unintended consequences when you admit yourself that the states now are underneath the requirements. i think all of us do not want lead in our water. all of us believe that there's

some reason for congress to get involved and make sure that states comply through federal preemption and that we also continue to monitor this and see what the latest detection levels are. but i submit i have been in congress a number of years just as you have and we have always been talking about this and we specified again and again requirements do not have lead in our water. so i think that this bill is probably an overstep, an overreach and taking your own comment that states are underneath the requirement, i am not sure we need the bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: yeah, mr. speaker. i request an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman controls the time. he's recognized for two minutes. mr. doyle: i say to my friend, senator inhofe and senator alexander are co-sponsors of this bill. so i think those two gentleman, very conservative gentlemen, i think my friend would agree,

are -- have looked at the bill and are co-sponsors of the bill. i'd also say to my friend that i'd be happy to share a copy of my letter from the plumbing manufacturers institute with him, if he'd like to share a letter that he has from anyone that contradicts this. i believe we have shared this letter with your staff, and i hope that you'll look it over. i would just say to the gentleman, to my colleagues, mr. speaker, that i think we should -- we should try to do the best we can do for the american people when it comes to their health. it's true that a handful of states have already adopted lower standards, but it's just a handful of states. we have 50 states, and over 40 still have not done this. so i think it's important that we set a national standard. this will in effect set a national standard that uses the best technologies available to get us as low as we can based on what we know today. the industry has said that we can do this at minimal costs to

the industry. we force no individual to buy replacements. this is something people can choose to do if they want to, and i think most families will take advantage of this. for the average faucet, if you look at a faucet that's about $85 -- and you know, everyone knows when you go into a store you can buy faucets that costs $500 and you can buy faucets that costs $30 or $40 or in between. if you look at the average, which is around $80, what we're talking is somewhere between $1.70 extra on a faucet. so we're not talking about a big cost. as i said, i have the industry letter, which i'm happy to share with you, saying they think it's a good thing too. so i would just say to my colleagues, hey, let's do the best we can for all of america. sure, a handful of states have already taken the lead and have gone farther. mr. chairman, i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. doyle: but when people's health and safety is involved,

we should never skimp on that. if we're going to err, let's err on the side of the most we can do based on the technology we have with a bill that does not put any onerous burden on manufacturers by their own statements and which many dozens of organizations and utility companies support and that has the support of conservative senators, co-sponsors like senator inhofe of oklahoma, senator alexander of tennessee, and a unanimous vote in the senate, let's have a unanimous vote here in the house. i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the squafment florida. mr. stearns: i request such time as i may consume. let me first of all when you say when you are quoting conservatives, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee joe barton is against this bill. when you talk about who is the spokesman in the house, joe barton on the energy and commerce. you serve on energy and commerce, so you obviously would respect his opinion. and also i would say to my

colleague, we are not a subcommittee of the senate. i think we are an independent body. as much as i respect your voicing commendation to the senate, frequently here, i submit that the house of representatives is a totally different body and represents closer to the people. the people who go to lowe's and the hardware store. the people who are concerned and consciencious and the people that don't want to have overregulation trying to create jobs in this economy. i'd also say you keep mentioning how the senate overwhelmingly supports this bill. i would say rhetorically to you, did you support the tax cuts last night? did you support the tax cut extension? the majority, a lot of people on your side, did not. yet in the senate it was overwhelmingly supported. so oftentimes there is a different approach in the senate and the house and i suspect if you get elected every six years as opposed to every two, you are going to have a little more

close relationship with the constituents. you'll do town meetings, telephone town meetings. if you are a u.s. senator perhaps you have a large state, you'll be doing it through the media. if you are there in a town meeting when somebody comes up to you face to face and says, stearns why are you going to put this new retirement in? i thought we had the proper levels -- requirement in? i thought we had the proper levels already in place. why are you stipulating more regulation? i go back again to your statement that basically this is a case where the states are underneath the requirement -- going by your own statement i think you have summed up my argument that the bill is not needed w that i reserve the balance of my time. -- needed. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. doyle: i would say to my friend, the one thing i will agree with my friend on is that the house of representatives is not the senate of the united states senate.

i wholeheartedly agree with that. i would also say to my friend, i believe he may not have been present that day, on may 26 this year, we had a vote in committee on this bill. and representative barton voted for this bill in committee as part of our drinking water bill. so did 18 other republicans. so the bill passed our committee, mr. stearns, 45--- certainly i yield. mr. stearns: at that point that was not the bill that barbara boxer introduced in the senate. that was a bill that was instituted and created in the house. mr. doyle: reclaiming my time. that bill was the companion bill here in the house which is exactly the same as the boxer bill. it was ms. eshoo's bill. it passed the committee 41-1, with 18 republicans supporting it, including chairman barton who is my dear friend. i would just say to my friend that i would be more concerned with someone coming up to a town hall meeting to me and asking me why we haven't done everything

we could to get lead out of drinking water. and the standard is 8%. in my state, to my knowledge, we don't have a lower standard. i certainly appreciate legislation like this which sets the lowest standard we can attain with the technology we have and do so in a way that's not onerous to either the public or the manufacturers who support this bill. with that, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the chair would remind all members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. this debate has probably gone on too long for this. i think i'm going to wrap up here and say to my colleagues of course you know that at the point that mr. barton had an understanding with mr. waxman, at that point, it was under different understandings for the funding of the bill, the science of the bill, and the labor provisions. these things have since changed. as you know if it was the same

bill it would come back under a house bill number. but it's coming back as a senate bill that's introduced by barbara boxer. so this is not, as you would realize, is not the same bill. otherwise what mr. barton agreed upon with mr. waxman, that would be the bill we would be voting on. as you know this is not the bill. this is a different bill. and so i urge my colleagues with that to vote against the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. so we can move on to other important bills. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: i would say to my friend that this bill is identical to the bill that we had in the house. it's an identical bill. it's identical in portion. it's not the entire bill we had in the house. this portion of the bill is identical to the bill that we had in the house. i would hope my colleagues would join our colleagues in the

senate in supporting this legislation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pittsburgh yields back his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 3874. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the rules are suspended -- mr. stearns: on that the yeas and nays is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise in mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to h.r. 6533, the local community radio act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 6533, a bill to implement the recommendations of the federal communications commission report to the congress regarding low-power f.m. service, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i first want to thank chairman boucher. and to let mr. bouch every know -- boucher know it has been a privilege to work with him on the years together during the energy and commerce committee, especially the two years he served as chairman of the subcommittee on energy and the subcommittee on communications technology and the internet. he has been a great colleague

and partner in legislation and a great friend and i want to wish chairman boucher only the best in his next steps. i also want to thank chairman waxman for strongly supporting this bill that will give local communities across this country access to their airwaves. i am grateful for the support that this bill has from both sides of the aisle, from myself, the former vice chairman of the communications subcommittee, to the future vice chairman of the communications subcommittee, this bill's lead co-sponsor, and my good friend, lee terry from omaha. we have been working together to bring local community oriented radio to more cities, counties, and neighborhoods across the country for 10 years now. and i would say to my friend that i think we are finally on the last leg of this journey. this bill will allow churches, schools, neighborhood groups, and others to put community oriented programming on the air.

and it will help first responders provide those communities with critical information in times of natural disasters and other emergencies. you see, when the federal communications commission created the low power f.m. radio service, they sought to create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and allow local schools, churches, and other community-based organizations to provide programming that's responsive to local community needs and interests. congress, however, passed the radio broadcasting preservation act in 2000 and many of those organizations were prevented from communicating to their members, supporters, and residents on the f.m. radio dial. that bill called for a field study performed by the mitre corporation and for the f.c.c. to recommend to us what we should do. in 2004, on a unanimous bipartisan basis, the federal communications commission issued

a report to congress which stated that, and i quote, congress should readdress this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third adjacent channel distance separation requirements for l.p.-f.m. stations. for a second time in november of 2007 and for a third time again on september, 2009 all five f.c.c. commissioners agreed that congress should lift the restriction on l.p. f.m. stations and allow them to license new stations in more communities. the bill we have under debate today, the local community radio act of 2009, does just that. when they are allowed to exist under current law, l.p. f.m. station vs. proven to be a vital source of information during local or national emergencies. these stations promote the arts and education from religious organizations, community groups, organizations promoting

literacy, and many other civically oriented organizations. stations like kocx in louisiana which is operated by the southern development foundation, a group active in the african-american community. the station broadcasts public affairs shows, religious programming, hip-hop, and sigh deco music 24 hours a day. side could he -- zydeco music is essential. or rockland, maine, which broadcasts talk and call-in shows on issues important to the community on a variety of things. those six other stations have their transmitters in the station's home in knox county, wrfr is the only station that originates its programming there. and wqrz in bay st. louis, mississippi, which remained on

the air during hurricane katrina and served as the emergency operations center for hancock county during the worst storm there in a century. congress has to act on the commission's recommendations otherwise similar stations are prevented from operating in communities across america, communities like mine which are too large to have any slots for new l.p. f.m. stations but could fit several at third. you don't have to take my word for it, every f.c.c. commissioner since 2003 has vouched for this or the mitre corporation's outside studies. we all know it's going to work because it already works currently. larges commercial and noncommercial f.m. stations duplicate and extend their signals on these same third adjacent channels that the f.c.c. wants to also make available to new noncommercial stations. this bill has broad support and i'd like to add in these letters

from almost a dozen leaders from catholic and protestant faiths like the united church of christ and the national association of evangelicals, a letter from two dozen national and local public interest, civil rights, local groups, and another letter from the leadership conference on civil rights and finally this letter from the national federation of community broadcasters and the prometheus radio project all who support this bill. exactly a year and a day ago, the house passed an earlier version of this legislation, h.r. 4711, a fine bill. but the broadcasters' concerns kept it bottled up in the senate all year. i'm pleased to tell you that at the 11th hour in the ni time theous stakeholders were able to reach an agreement over the disputed language and all of the senate holds have been lifted. the version of the bill was supported by everyone with a

stake in broadcasting, small noncommercial stations, big noncommercial stations like n.p.r., big commercial stations like the national association of broadcasters, and this bill deserves my colleagues' support, unanimous support as well. . the time has finally come for congress to rewrite this law. the time has come to make the airwaves available to the people they serve. as i said a year ago, the time has come to bring low power to the people. mr. chairman, thank you again for support of this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, i request such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stearns: i think the gentleman did an excellent job. we support it on this side. i think the gentleman said everything but we're going to have also the principle

co-sponsor of this bill who has worked with you and i'm told that you folks have worked together for almost eight years so this is a very significant accomplishment and i would defend the national association of broadcasters because during this process they did have some very technical concerns. i understand now they're supporting it. the new concessions, i think, that they brought out i think were helpful although i'm sorry it took so long to bring it together. it permits any citizen to complain to the f.c.c. that a low-powerer radio station is causing interference and requires the f.c.c. to shut down the station within one business day. it requires a low-power f.m. station to seek a wave from the f.c.c. to find spectrum for their station and mandates that a full power station what wants to relocate will be able to knock a low-power radio station off the air but permits the f.c.c. to use waivers and other means to find spectrums for

displaced low-power f.m. stations. i say that only because there's businesses that have in place broadcast spectrum that are operating, have operated for many years, and their concern was that the churches, the community centers, the schools, the universities and the low-power stations might interfere and i think that was a legitimate concern. i'm glad that the national association of broadcasters have now conceded these have worked out and obviously i think any of us in this body would agree that it's very important part of the democracy to have some of these, shall we say an electric type of stations that offer church music and church services and hip-hop music. so they're taylored in certain way, plus they're available for emergency services. i commend you and mr. lee terry who is going to speak shortly on this. basically the legislation theaks -- the legislation expands the opportunity for all of these groups to the 160 million americans in the top 50 radio

markets in the country who thus far have been excluded. it accomplishes this by returning the authority to the f.c.c. for licensing decisions related to low-power f.m. stations, major features of the bill which is very similar to the bill that passed the house last year, are that it fully protects full-power stations from interference by new low-power radio stations, it responds to the concerns of the npr and the nab and protects reading for the blind services, the senate bill added a requirement the f.c.c. conduct a study on the economic impact of low-power f.m. stations. so this is all part of the process so with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. i want to thank my friend for his support of the bill. i know he's looking forward to being able to listen to his favorite hip-hop music on his low-power f.m. station in

florida and this has been a long journey and we have tried earnestly to address all the concerns that the broadcasters have and they were many a times but i think we finally reached a point where we all agree broadcasters, commercial and noncommercial, that we now have a process in place that protects their interests and their concerns and allows local communities now to have this valuable resource. so with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, i'm going to yield to the distinguished gentleman from nebraska who also has been the principle author of this bill, has worked tirelessly for eight years, i would say to my friends on the other side, akoz, is that the station i should listen to for this? ok, with that i yield such time as he may consume to mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. terry: the gentleman from jacksonville, florida, knows the hip-hop station, i'm impressed.

but this is grassroots radio. we've had pirate radio, now we're going to have legitimate grassroots radio. this is empowering to those that have little or no voice in their communities. this is why the gentleman from pittsburgh and i have worked so diligently over the last eight to 10 years, actually it goes back almost 12 years when we helped get the mider studdy, so we could know based on science whether or not there would be interference or not and when that study, a thorough study, came back and said there would be no interference, mike and i began the process of making sure that we could allow on the third ajacencey communities to have a licensed f.m. station. and that's what low-power is about. community. it's not going to blast from omaha to lincoln, it probably won't even go from east omaha to

midtown in omaha or in pittsburgh but the reality is it will serve the community. just in my district alone, in the omaha metropolitan area, since beginning this process, we've had dozens of community groups contact us about when they will be able to apply for a low-power f.m. station. this includes the chikano awareness center, this includes catholic charity, this includes salem baptist church which is located in the heart of most impoverished area of my district and one of the most impoverished, unfortunately, for the omaha area, one of the most impoverished areas in the united states and in the african-american community. and one of their issues is that they don't have a particular voice for the african-american or north omaha community. so this is why it's empowering. they finally have the opportunity now to have a radio voice of which to communicate

community issues. so today mike says, this is low-power to the people, it's the essence of grassroots radio, this is a day to celebrate for all of our community groups because they will now be empowered once the senate takes this up, now since all of the objections have been dealt with in the appropriate manners, so this is truly a day for them to celebrate and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doyle: i just want to share with my colleagues, we've been waiting, we were told this letter was in route and it has arrived, just for the record this is a letter from the national association of broadcasters which was addressed to myself and mr. terry informing us both that they are now in support of this bill, that they appreciate the work that our staffs have done with them, along with the senate co-sponsor and that they support

the bill. another piece of good news, c.b.o. has scored this bill, it has no budgetary impact, the c.b.o. score is zero. another piece of good news for my colleagues who are concerned about cost. and last, i think it's only fair that we recognize that a lot of people have worked very, very hard on this bill. i would be remiss personally if i didn't thank kenneth degrath who telegraphs me, who has put his heart and soul into this legislation and it's more responsible than anybody in my office for seeing this come today. also from the radio project, pete, cheryl lee from the united church of christ, michael dom, lee dun with senator mccain's office. there have been many, many people who have worked hard. i know that lee terry, his staff, too, has worked very hard on this issue and that all of our staffs deserve credit.

they're the unsung heroes behind the scenes that do all the work. brad with lee terry's office has been just great on this too. so i want to thank my colleagues. i have no more speakers so i'll reserve the balance of my time and give mr. stearns the chance to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i think the gentleman pointed out this is a bipartisan bill. it took a while and the national associated broadcasters are now supporting this. it doesn't cost any money so i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: i yield myself 30 seconds in closing, mr. speaker, this bill passed unanimously in the house of representatives when it was h.r. 1147. this bill has broad bipartisan support. i want to thank all of my colleagues for their work and i would hope that we could have a unanimous vote today on the house floor when the bill is brought up and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6533. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i believe there's a bill at the dets , h.r. 5510, i'd like -- desk, h.r. 510, i'd like to call it up -- 5510, i'd like to call it up. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman -- the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5510, a bill to amend the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008 to allow amounts under the troubled as ets relief program to be used to provide legal assistance to homeowners to avoid foreclosure. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, and the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. and i'd like to immediately go to the sponsor of the bill, ms. kaptur from ohio, to yield to her as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you very much to my dear colleague, congressman capuano of massachusetts, for yielding me this time.

in support of moving today, h.r. 5510, the aiding those facing foreclosure act, would merely allow technical clarification language to existing legislation, no authorization of funding or anything like that is included in this bill. i would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support and for bringing this forth today. in particular i'd like to thank chairman frank, congressman steve latourette, for their ongoing efforts on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure. ohio is among those states labeled as the hardest hit in our nation by the foreclosure and economic crisis along with 18 other states receiving what are called hardest hit assistance funds. ohio, among other states, wants to use a small amount of its existing funds to support legal

advice to individual families facing foreclosure through not for profit legal organizations. however, treasury interpreted that the law didn't allow that. that's why we are here today, to clarify that in fact citizens of our nation who are single family own homers -- homeowners do have the right to proper legal advice in such critical proceedings that affect their equity and their family's futures. millions of people have faced foreclosure across our nation. and far too many are losing their homes without proper necessary legal representation. many even have no idea that they have legal standing in such property proceedings. at such a critical and emotional moment in a family's life, legal advice can help a family find the outcome that works best for them in a foreclosure proceeding. in today's very complex mortgage

proceedings, it becomes daunting for affected homeowners to gain the legal advice necessary to navigate the increasingly complex world of distant banks and courts which often are much more easily navigated by the mortgageeur and certainly the mortgagee has legal rights as well. we appreciate the fact that the treasury is sending a letter in support for our efforts. i introduce this legislation as a legislative fix, h.r. 5510, for those states already receiving hardest hit funds, h.r. 5510 increases the states' ability to serve only single-family owner-occupied units that are facing default, delink winsy, foreclosure, deed in lieu or short sale by permitting if the state so chooses to use hardest hit funds to support legal services offered by not for profit legal

aid organizations. . in sum the bill does not require states to use funds to support legal aid or services, so there's no requirement. it's only permissive. the bill does not permit funds to be used for class action lawsuits. it only applies to single families, owner occupied units. the bill does not permit any organizations like acorn or others to receive funding. it does not take money away from any state that is already administering its funds. and the bill actually will help relieve pressure on the states that are not hardest hit as other funding becomes available in related programs in the future. so let me be clear, there is no new money involved here. this is only giving the hardest hit states another tool, if they so choose to use it, to fight foreclosures in their states and give proper legal standing to

all parties involved. please support passage of h.r. 5510, the aiding those facing foreclosure act. i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back any remaining time to the chairman of the full committee, congressman frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio heeds back the balance of her time. swoid, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, will control the time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: i rise on behalf of ranking member spencer baucus, the minority, in opposition, strong opposition to h.r. 5510. mr. speaker, here we go again. the american people have rightly demanded an end to the bailouts, but this is -- this outgoing democratic majority just can't seem to let go. just this past october secretary geithner put out a lengthy report proclaiming the

expiration of tarp, but it seems that the $700 billion bailout isn't quite dead yet. just a week away from christmas eve, the democratic majority is today attempting to bring the bailout back to life for the soul purpose of showering taxpayer money on community groups that provide legal assistance. the premise of reopening tarp for this purpose is troubling enough, but perhaps even worse is that we are bypassing any form of regular order to consider this this morning. we first received the text of this language which is substantially different from the introduced version at 9:00 a.m. this morning. no hearings were held on this legislation. no subcommittee or full committee markup. no c.b.o. score has been produced. we have yet to receive any feedback whatsoever from the department of housing and urban

development or from the president. we have heard that there's a letter of support but simply the letter we received from the treasury is one outlining why they can't do it. in fact, there's been newspaper articles about how secretary geithner has blocked this from occurring. in fact, the general counsel recently wrote that the proposed legal aid services are not necessary to the implementation or effectiveness of the hardest hit fund because congress has provided other specific appropriations that funded the same type of legal aid processes , services, proposed by the states and federal, that legal aid services are not necessary or essential to the implementation of a loan modification program. the case has not been made that there are inadequate resources for legal assistance. the american people expect better. the legislation before us today

could conceivably result in billions of taxpayer dollars being pumped into community groups similar to now defunct acorn. that was not the purpose of the hardest hit housing market's program, nor was it the -- contemplated by the original emergency tarp bailout. even treasury secretary geithner agrees with that point. tarp was designed to return all unspent funds directly to the taxpayer so that legislative efforts like today's wouldn't be possible. in theory, this legislation could prevent more than $7 billion from being returned to the taxpayers. our goal should be to return as much taxpayer money to the taxpayer, not to invent new ways to make sure that we spend it. tarp was not designed to be a perpetual slush fund. the drafters of the 2008 tarp

clearly understood how tempting it would be to have a $700 billion pot of money lying around, so they installed a firm expiration date for the program. that hasn't stopped this majority from attempting to use the emergency stabilization money for other purposes, but today's poorly crafted, nonvented, redundant, duplicative, and perhaps unnecessary bailout is particularly egregious due to the process they followed. i urge my colleagues to reject this suspension. and if additional legal assistance moneys are required, go through regular order to prove it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska reserves the balance of his time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i ask unanimous consent to be substituted for mr. capuano as the manager on our side. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. frank: i salute the good soldier attitude of my good

friend from nebraska in the absence of any member of the financial services committee. he agreed to stand up and read what was written. he has no way of knowing how silly it is. nobody explained to him how inaccurate it was. for example, he said this has not gone through regular order. it is in fact exactly the same legislative language that was debated, amended, and adopted in the house financial services committee during financial reform and then in conference. it is exactly that. there is language in here that the gentlewoman from ohio sensibly agreed to that makes it clear that organizations that have been convicted of criminal abuses can't be here. only legal services organizations can get this money. there can be no class action. it was carefully done. i wish the people who had been there told him that, but this is the legislative language taken from a bill that went through the full legislative procedure

and passed the house. in fact, it was a change because we told the gentlewoman from ohio, who has been diligent in this regard, we thought it was best precisely to avoid that kind of argument to take the language that had already been adopted in the committee -- conference on the floor of the house. secondly, we are told this is going to cost extra money. no, it will not. it could save money. in the language, the language that the house passed and the conference committee passed, we authorize $35 million for exactly this purpose. but the gentleman from ohio -- the gentlewoman from ohio is proposing we take money voted under the tarp and use it for that. the gentleman has been asked to characterize that as a slush fund. hardheartedness has rarely come so close to the christmas season. this slush fund is to go to working americans who bought a home, who are facing foreclosure. we now know, frankly, we were

reasonably certain of this when we passed this earlier this year, we now know there have been serious legal problems with the foreclosures. some are merely paperwork. others we have seen documented, abuses. you are a homeowner in trouble. you have the legal teams coming at you from the lenders and the servicers and others. you cannot yourself afford a lawyer. you are having trouble meeting a mortgage payment. what we say is we will give you access to a lawyer. not in the offensive way, there's no class action here. there is no legal suit that can be brought against the lenders. there maybe should be. this says i'm being foreclosed, i don't think i should be foreclosed. they made a mistake. i paid that mortgage. or i got a modification. somebody forgot it. all we are saying is can we take some money that's already been voted and let that person hire a lawyer? have a lawyer go to court, a legal services lawyer vetted by the local bar association to

defend them? to the republican party that's a slush fund. i am appalled. i am appalled at the insensitivity and the cruelty that says we will not take -- the tarp money -- i voted the tarp money along with mr. boehner the incoming speaker, and i did it at the request of president bush, the bailouts that they keep flailing about, every single bailout that exists in america today was initiated by president george w. bush. every single one. a.i.g., the tarp, the automobiles. it was george bush who do it. and george bush after the election, conveniently, said that it was the tarp to save the economy from the consequences of the mistakes made during his presidency, i think. what there are saying is this we put an end to any new money. give existing money, given the clear documentation there have been abuses and errors and some cases fraud in the foreclosure process, although they were

paperwork errors in some cases, beleaguered homeowners trying to save their homes, trying to keep theirselves and their family from being kicked out of a home, in case there was a mistake, if everything is in lawyer, the lawyers can't save them. we are saying given what's been documented let's take some of the money that's already been voted in the tarp. and put it there. secretary geithner told me personally he supports this. i think members will accept the fact that i'm telling the truth when i tell you i spoke to the secretary, showed him what we were doing. he supports it. the language was gone through the full legislative process. it's language taken from the bill. i hope we will pass this and also have the 35 million. this is for the hardest hit states. the states that have had the worst impact. the 35 million could then be used for the other states. again, a slush fund. a slush fund that can't go to acorn. i know acorn is a real focus for them. it validates the old saying,

great oak session from tiny acorns grow. any time we try to help poor people where they are faced with the unfair situation of an array of lawyers, that acorn gets it. acorn can't get this money. on a number of grounds. they can't be class action suits. should it be the case that a homeowner who is convinced that he or she is being unfairly foreclosed upon and could document errors, should that person be denied legal assistance for money already voted at the request of george bush with the support of mitch mcconnell, and support of the incoming speaker, and majority leader. i wish this wasn't part of it. people tell me why are things partisan? i wish things weren't parnzant. i wish i could eat more and not gain weight. we are here in a partisan situation. what ought to be obvious money already appropriated knowing as

we do that there have been abuses in the foreclosure process, all of the available tools, appoint genuine lawyers. you know legal service lawyers, they are among the most dedicated people you'll find. people could make far more money in private practice who could help out and they are restricted. they can't go to a general organization that goes -- they have to go to a general legal services organization which is always supervised by the state bar association. it's a slush fund. i can understand some differences of opinion. but to demean it this way, to call it a slush fund, to deny ownership of the bailout which was a republican administration policy, and to characterize it that way, all we are saying is money already voted could be made available for genuine legal assistance to help people who are facing unfair foreclosures and they can go to court -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker. i was ignoring them. the point is that we get this demeaning characterization. we are supposed to be proud of our system of justice. we are not talking about giving anybody a free pass. what we are saying is, working people who are facing foreclosure ought to be able to go to court on not equal terms with the lenders and the larger organizations opposing them, but with some bear minimum of representation. and that's a slush fund. that's a political trick. i am very disappointed. we had real hopes that we could get some agreement on this. everybody acknowledges there have been abuses in the foreclosure process. we know there are people who can't afford lawyers. it will not cost the taxpayers any money. this is money that will be used elsewhere, it's a diversion from money that would otherwise be used in the tarp. it doesn't reopen the tarp.

i hope it will add to the 35 million we hope we can get. it's been vetted through the legislative process. this language, the gentlewoman from ohio, a great crusader on behalf of people in this situation, accepted our suggestion that she take the language that's already been voted on in the house. i am disappointed but i hope that party discipline will not prevail on the republican side. people, particularly from those states, ohio, california, indiana, and florida where they are particularly hard hit, but everybody, because everybody will benefit if we can increase this pool, will say something that's apparently terribly radical to my republican friends, let's let members of legal assistance operations supervised by their bar associations subject to their supreme courts and the states' supervision go to court to defend someone facing an array of high-priced legal talent when they know that they are being foreclosed upon illegally and i appropriately. .

and that's apparently a terrible thing to the republican party. i'm appalled and i hope that a sense of fairness will somehow prevail and we can pass this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: i appreciate my friend from massachusetts pointing out my good soldiering here. but there are certain things that i do know are facts. and that is taxpayers are already paying for legal services for the impoverished. the legal services corporation. and the appropriation for this year, at least as it currently is listed, is $440 million. and perhaps what we're saying here is using the tarp fund as the vehicle and keeping tarp alive is the wrong process here. perhaps this isn't a tarp or financial services issue, the

right way is an appropriation issue. if the majority is upset that there is not enough money going to legal services for the poor, whether it's for foreclosures or other legal issues, the right path would be addressing the appropriations committee and asking for additional funds within an already existing process. now, the committee's staff is not aware of whether or not geithner has now said he is in fact of this -- favor of this bill. we don't know of any conversations, but we have no doubt to disagree with the gentleman from massachusetts' statement that he's had conversations. we heard about a letter but -- mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? does the gentleman yield? mr. terry: i will yield to you. mr. frank: yes. the letter is on the way. i state as a matter of fact,

think a personally spoke to secretary geithner answered explained that he supports it. does the gentleman doubt my word? mr. terry: no, and i said i don't doubt your word. i said that, barney. but what we have here is this september 13 letter that, with unanimous consent, would submit, but we also heard there's another letter or maybe we're talking about the same -- i will yield to the gentleman. mr. frank: what you are talking about is one in which he says he doesn't have the legal authority to do it. this bill gives him the legal authority. there's no conflict, this bill now is a response to that letter and i repeat that he has said that he is favor of getting the legal authority to do it. mr. terry: and reclaiming our time, that's the reason for our opposition here. the treasury department, it wasn't republicans, it was their own administration and the cabinet member, mr. geithner, that said tarp doesn't have the powers to be a legal aid fund. so it takes them to have to

change this. so it says -- we kind of -- i kind of heard both things here, that if the administration was agreeing to this or saying that this was the right thing for tarp or that they had the powers, why was this bill even necessary? but let's say tarp was necessary or this bill is necessary because as geithner said in the september 13 letter they don't have the power so now two years after the fact they want to change tarp to become a legal aid fund and i was part of the group that held out our votes because we wanted to make sure that this wasn't going to be a fund that was going to be continuously used, that every dollar that was going to be spent had the opportunity to be recouped so that the taxpayers at the end would not be out any

dollars. this changes the whole philosophy of tarp for many people that voted for it. at that point i will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. apparently the gentleman from nebraska, having denounced those bailouts, now tells us he voted for it. so it's confession time on the floor of the house. he apparently voted for the measure that he characterized as a bailout that was such an imposition. secondly, i've never heard any more confusion than discussing letters. yeah, the secretary wrote and said, i don't now have the authority and we then said, ok, we'll give you the authority. it does not -- i yield to the gentleman. mr. terry: we were referring to the gentlelady from ohio's statement on the floor that she has a letter saying that they support this. we have not seen a letter -- mr. frank: i know you haven't seen a letter. i told her that -- the secretary told me the letter is coming. the letter is now being cleared by o.m.b. we don't have the letter yet. the letter has been written but i can tell that you the secretary says he wants it and

the gentleman's discussion of the letters totally confused and confusing in consequence. yes, there was a letter saying we don't know have the authority this gives them the authority which they welcome. secondly, this does not extend the tarp at all. this does not extend the tarp in any way. and as for getting repaid, there is legislation that we added to the tarp that requires that at the end of the tarp program, five years from the date of it, 2013, the president must submit to us legislation that gives us a way to get it back to the financial services industry. so, yeah, this will be repaid to the taxpayer by the financial service industry. by the way, the tarp is now down, this does not add one dollar or one day to the tarp. either in its lifetime or in its funding. i wasn't interested in -- the gentleman said, well, there's money in legal services. yeah, the legal services appropriation last year was passed before we understood the

extent of the mistakes, the flaw and abuse in the foreclosure process. that is exactly right. the $400 million in legal services did not anticipate what we have since learned about abuses in the foreclosure process. finally the gentleman said, do it through the appropriation. we have done that as well. we have asked the $35 million additional. by the way, this is not extra money, the appropriations would be additional money, but i look forward to their support when that happens. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: continue to reserve. mr. frank: i recognize now for three minutes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kilroy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. ms. kilroy: i thank the chairman and the gentlelady from, my colleague from ohio, congresswoman capture, for bringing this bill forward. you know, the hardest hit funds were put into place with the intention of assisting and helping people in states that have been hard hit, hard hit by

the foreclosure crisis that has enveloped this country. states like ohio that have been hit for years over and over again with record foreclosures. we've tried various ways to assist in this issue and the president and the treasury came up and we approved the hardest-hit fund program, h.r. 5510, and that allows states to put together a plan for how they want to address the issue of foreclosures inside their own states. the states need to agree. now, some states wanted to include legal services in their plans and we're not -- and were not able to do it. states like ohio were not able to do it. even though the use of attorneys in the process can be a very cost effective and useful way of moving the cases forward, of coming to agreement, of helping people come up with a plan and

helping the banks to agree with it, sometimes they're needed because there are egregious abuses on the other side if the -- in the foreclosure process that need to be addressed. but sometimes in counties like mine, franklin county, ohio, where when i was a county commissioner we set up a court mediation process for foreclosures, lawyers are needed and useful in, again, bringing the parties together and helping them resolve the issues with respect to their mortgages, their refinancing, their abilities to keep their home. their home which is their major investment in their life. and keeping people in their homes also helps our communities. it helps our neighborhoods. because every time we have a foreclosure we see crime going up, we see the value of their neighbors' properties going down. this fix to allow treasury to approve plans submitted by states that want to use legal services will help this process

move forward in an effective, just and cost effective way. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. mr. frank: how much time is it? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 2 minutes -- two minutes remaining and the gentleman from nebraska has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, who is actually a sponsor of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i wasn't going to come over and talk on the bill this morning but there are some things that are upsetting me as we wind down this lame duck session and i think there's one merciful thing that could happen already here, this lame duck ought to be killed because nothing good's occurring at the moment. but this particular bill i am a proud co-sponsor of, with ms. kaptur, and i commend her for moving this legislation. mr. latourette: as a matter of fact, we were engaged in some conversations last night to

clear it for unanimous consent, but that didn't quite work out because there are, as you know there the debates today, some objections. but i have to say that having listened to the discussion, the objections fall short in my estimation. this bill doesn't extend tarp and by the way, for the record, i voted against tarp, despite the fact that president bush wanted us to vote for it, secretary paulson and a number of our leadership, i thought it was a bad idea. continue to think it's a bad idea even though some people say it saved america. bad idea because it had no rules. we're going to do this, no, we're going to do that, we're going to buy banks, whatever. but the money is already out there, all this bill does is says states have an option if they choose to take some of the money in the hard-hit fund and allow people who are being foreclosed upon unjustly to use those funds for legal representation. no class actions, no acorn, no peanuts, no nothing.

this is a clean bill when it comes to that. and i think that we are letting -- we are letting form assume substance. yesterday i was on the floor and i was a co-sponsor with a piece of legislation with ms. mccollum that would have moved money, no new money, would have moved money so that societies that are coercing young girls into marriage, we could build them latrines so they could go to school or we could make sure that they stay in school so they're not forced into marriage at the age of 12 and 13. all of a sudden there was a fiscal argument. when that didn't work people had to add an abortion element to it. this is a partisan place. i'm a republican. i'm glad we beat their butt in the election, but there comes a time when enough is enough and mccollum's bill was a good bill last night. capture's bill is a good bill today. we should stop the nonsense, approving the bill and move on.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i have one final speaker who will close. if the gentleman is prepared to yield back i'll finish with that speaker. ter tier after your one speaker i'll -- mr. terry: after your one speaker i'll have a few seconds and yield back. mr. frank: the gentleman can finish. i have one speaker to close. mr. terry: she's going to use your time to close? mr. frank: yeah, she's going to close. mr. terry: ok, i appreciate it. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: the point here is there's an appropriate vehicle and this isn't it. we already have taxpayers paying into legal services, perhaps there should have been more money in there, but we didn't go through an appropriation pros sess for this area this year. that was the majority's decision here. we could have this argument and debate but that's the proper

course here and it needs to go through regular service. this is not. enough is enough. my friend from ohio is right. enough is enough. let's let tarp die. we want it gone. it served its purpose, let's not keep it alive. let's use the appropriate ways to do this which is legal services corporation. at this time i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i now yield to close for us one of the single most effective fighter against unfair foreclosures on our committee and among the leaders in the nation, the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, my remaining two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker, and members, i'd first like to thank barney frank for all of the efforts that he's put into helping homeowners and the leadership that he's provided on this committee, the financial services committee. i'd like to thank marcy capture.

she has been a stalwart not on the committee but working every day because she's in one of the hardest-hit states but so am i, in california. it is unthinkable that we could have used tarp funds for every major corporation, all of the banks, all of the two big to fails, and yet we would deny homeowners in the hardest hit states some assistance. what are we saying? these are people who have followed the american dream and we have found that all kind of exotic products were put on the market, many of them were tricked into signing on the dotted line and now we have whole communities that are being boarded up, that are being foreclose ured, communities that are being driven into the ground because cities can't afford to keep them up. we've done everything we can do. we have assistance to unemployed folks, we're trying to do everything with not a lot of help from the administration or from the regulatory agencies in

general. the program simply has not worked. we need to send a message and a real substantive message to the people in the homeowners of america, that we care about them. we don't want them put on the street, we don't want them losing their homes. the services, the too big to fail banks, everybody has made out on the backs of the american public. what's wrong with using some of the tarp money for league assistance? people are trying very hard to fight these battles alone. they can't get in touch with the services. they're trying to figure out where the notes are, who really owns the mortgages. we have found that all kind of robo signing is going on. this whole industry has failed us and we are allowing these homeowners to swim out there alone by themselves with no help. . let's help the american people. this is the least we can do as we close out this hetcht congress. we can stand up and demand that

they get the kind of help that will keep them and their families this their homes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5510, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider -- mr. terry: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the matter just suspended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6532, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up h.r. 6523? mr. skelton: 6523, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of

the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6523, a bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of energy to proscribe military pen nell strength for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, today is the beginning of the end of a long journey. a journey that started with the submission of the president's budget on february 1. the law requires the president to send us a budget and he did his duty. but our obligation considering the budget goes deeper. the founding fathers entrusted

congress with the care of the armed forces. the constitution, article 1, section 8 requires that we, here in congress, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. this is our duty. most like me have spent their time with troops overseas, their dedication, their courage, their devotion never ceased to amaze me. their service and sacrifice is matched only by that of their families who bear the same burden. their sacrifice is at times almost unbearable. yet they do it. not for us. but for the american people. however we bear the awesome burden of repaying their sacrifice. for 48 consecutive years the congress has carried out its duty to the men and women in the military by passing a defense authorization bill. it's a job that has never been

easy. there have been many years where we have almost failed. in my 34 years here in congress, through 12 military conflicts, including the most divisive wars in american history, congress has waivered but never failed. this bill is a must-pass piece of legislation. don't let anyone tell you different. there are literally hundreds of needed provisions in here that will not become law any other way. i have time to only name a few. this bill stops increase in health care fees from hitting the families of military personnel. it authorizes the military families to extend try care -- tricare coverage to their dependent children until age 26. it adopts comprehensive legislation fighting sexual assault in the military. it creates a counter i.e.d. data base and enhances the effort to develop new lightweight body armor. it givers the dodd new tools --

d.o.d. new tools and improves military readiness. it bolsters our offense defense against ibe cyberattacks. and annual budget request for sustaining a strong deterrent. it aligns the shop building plan with a q.d.r. it includings significant acquisition reform which could save as much as $135 billion over the next five years. it provides for critical funding for our war fighters. it allows for 1.4 pay raise for our troops. it provides for funding for training equipment and sustaining the afghan security forces. it provides the essential funding to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. it creates additional positions for mental health care providers to treat our warriors who come

home in need. it extends a number of special pay and bonuses for our brave war fighters. some members are claiming falsely that the language in the bill and dwaunt gaunt detainees is not strong enough. let me tell you what the bill actually does. it prohibits the transfer release of detainees into the united states or its territories. it prohibits the use of the d.o.d. funding to build or modify any d.o.d. facility in our country for the detention of any guantanamo bay detainee. this restriction applies not only to thompson, illinois, but the whole country. it prohibits the transfer of relief -- or release of any guantanamo pay detainee to any country which has received a detainee and allowed that detainee to return to the battlefield. this is the most thorough and comprehensive set of restrictions ever placed on the transfer and release of detainees. it is substantially stronger than current law. and voting this bill will have

the effect of making it easier to bring detainees into the united states. easier to transfer them to other countries that have failed to hold them in the past. we all know that this year's journey toward passage has been rancorous and difficult. like few others. no one's happy with everything that's been done, that's just the nature of congress. in finding common ground we have to give a little bit. we cannot give when it comes to supporting the men and women in the armed forces. we stand today on the dividing line between success and failure. we do not fail now. let's finish the journey. vote for national defense authorization act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, today i rise to speak with a heavy heart for a couple of reasons. one is the process that has

brought us to this point. and the other is that this will be the last defense bill for my good friend and partner on the committee, ike skelton, our chairman. he has been a force on the committee and within the defense community for decades. the way he has conducted business on the committee sets an example for all members of the committee and for this congress to follow. considering ike's legacy, the actions of the democratic leaders in the senate and house are all the more frustrating to me. they have made it completely clear they place a higher priority on repealing the penning pedge's -- pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy than the national defense authorization act. the procedure that set up in the house for passing legislation is the house passes a bill, goes through committee, goes through hearings, finally is passed by the committee, passed object the -- on the floor, and a similar process should be followed in the senate, and then once those two bills have been passed, we

have conferees appointed, the conferees get together and negotiate the differences in the bill, and final bills are brought back to the floor. to this date we have not had a senate bill passed on the floor. so this brings us to this point without a senate bill and giving individual senators the opportunity to have a line item veto on the house bill after we pass it here and send it back over. many of the provisions that we passed in our bill went through a semiconference, and some of the provisions which were championed by the house including a higher pay raise for our troops and the statutorily mandated pay raise of 1.4%, also a provision which would have exempted critical force protection and medevac personnel from any troop cap in afghanistan, and several provisions regarding the nation's nuclear and missile defense policies, those found themselves on the cutting floor

of the conference. most of those provisions have significant support in the house of representatives. mr. speaker, the american people have spoken and in that process that we had, the election, they are demanding a process that is better than the one that got us to this point. they want a legislative process that works to provide our troops with the resources they need, not a process that is held up for months and rushed through in the waning minutes of a lame duck session. the process in the senate coupled with a democratic leadership's goal of advancing legislation to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell ahead of the annual defense authorization bill has politicized the national defense authorization act and it's ndic tiffer of a flawed process with -- it's indicative of a flawed

process. in a time of war this is unconscionable. one thing i can promise to the american people and to our military, they will no longer be used as a political football. we will return to regular order in the next congress and i think that is something that we can all look forward to with pleasure. now, back to my good friend, the chairman. i want to commend him for years of service to this nation, to this congress, to the people that he has represented. we all owe him a debt of gratitude. and i have appreciated working with him, especially in these last two years as i had the opportunity to serve as the ranking member alongside him. we'll all miss him. ike, we owe you much and appreciate your service. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i

appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, it's been an absolute pleasure to work with him and i compliment him on his future role in this congress as the head of this fantastic committee. i know he'll make us proud and make all of our congress members proud in his leadership next year. i thank him very, very much. with that i yield two minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i join the ranking member in paying tribute to the extraordinary public service of our colleague from missouri who really exemplifies what it means to be a legislator of integrity and commitment and effectiveness. i do, however, want to differ with his rather distorted picture of the history here when he says we went outside of regular order. this house passed the defense

bill under regular order. with committee hearings and debate on the floor. we sent it to the senate because some senators objected to repealing don't-ask, don't-tell, which was included in the defense bill to start with 17 years ago, it was twice filibustered. the reason we are here now is that twice republican minority filibustered the bill. that was the breakdown in regular order. . but here we are today. speaker pelosi and leader hoyer took a very important stance and said, when the senate asked us, we'll break don't-ask, don't-tell from the regular bill, but we want to be sure both passes. that's what we're in the process of doing. to the credit of the senate leader and senator lieberman, they will be voting on cloture for don't-ask, don't-tell tomorrow. in light of that, while there is much in this bill with which i disagree, i strongly urge those who share many of my views to vote for it. and let me be very clear, i think it's very important to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. i honor the work that was done

under the leadership of the gentleman from missouri, although i have some disagreements with it. but the point is that the success of the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell is tied to the success of this bill in a perfectly reasonable way. in legislature people need to compromise. so i am going to vote for this bill, i vote for it knowing that tomorrow the senate will be getting cloture, there will be things in this that many of us will like and dislook, -- dislike, but i think it speaks well of the nation and the process we are going through and i urge those who share some of my objections to some pieces of this bill to vote for it so we can go ahead and get the whole thing done. i would also point out that even if we would defeat this bill, much of what i don't like would happen in the appropriations bill. so i urge those who join me in having concerns and incurring don't-ask, don't-tell to help us pass this bill and get this thing going. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, ranking member on the military

personnel subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. we stand here today seven months after the house passed its version of the 2011 defense authorization bill, because the leadership of the other body dithered. instead of doing the right thing for all members of our armed services. as a result the senate has not passed its version of the defense authorization. then in a last-minute rush to get a defense bill, any defense bill, we stand on the floor today to debate for 40 minutes under suspension of the rules a 900-page bill, $600 billion measure that is a stripped-down, weakened version of what the house enacted in may. we may hear some good things about the bill, but let me remind members that this rush to have a bill has cost the men and women in uniform. this bill is stripping out key house provisions in the name of

expediency. it falls short in many ways. this bill is named in honor of chairman ike skelton, who is de-- who has devoted years of service to the men and women of the armed forces. i want to say thank you to chairman skelton for his unwavering commitment to the house of representatives, to the committee on armed services and to every man and woman who is serving in uniform now in the past 35 years. regular greatfully, this bill, which he heavily -- regretfully this bill does not fully reflect his life-long commitment and dedication. despite the omissions in the bill, i will reluctantly urge members to support the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from -- the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 6523. i'd like to first of all thank chairman skelton for his dedication to national security and bipartisan leadership on our committee. i congratulate him on this bill which is appropriately named in his oner. -- honor. the bill before us today stresses our critical strategic programs including the liability and stability of our nuclear arsenal. it reduces the risk of nuclear proliferation to terrorists by urging these efforts above last year's levels. it also enhances our missile defenses by supporting the president's adaptive approach in preserving a hedge against potential threats from iran and north korea. and finally it sustains our national security face assets by supporting the interim war-fighting need space protection and space situational awareness. this bill is critical to our national security and i strongly urge its adoption today. i would be remiss, however, if i didn't say how disappointed i

was that certain cyber provisions that i included in the original national defense authorization act were not retained in the final bill. the united states is very vulnerable to a cyberattack and we are woefully unprepared. i'm going to continue to pursue this as a top priority in the next congress but i thank the chairman for his great work on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, the ranking member on the readiness subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. speaker. i too want to echo my compliments to the chairman for his service to this body and to the armed services of this country, but seven months ago, mr. speaker, when this bill passed, my good friend, the chairman, said there was no difference between republicans and democrats regarding the fighting of terrorism and where we stood. we passed the provision out of here that prohibited terrorists from guantanamo bay from coming to the united states. unfortunately that provision was

left out of this bill until about two hours ago when it was put in, but it still has a huge difference. because it's only for one year. and, mr. speaker, the problem with that is that two years ago when this administration came in, a prosecution of the worst terrorist that had ever hit the united states, the 9/11 defendants, was under way, been under way for 18 months, 56 motions, the prosecutor said we would have had a guilty plea within six months. this administration not only stopped all of that prosecution, but has refused for the last two years to prosecute the worst terrorists that have ever hit this soil and when we put a provision in there that said that we would never bring those detainees to this soil, it sent a message to them, go ahead and prosecute them. with this provision, mr. speaker, what we're now saying is, because of our majority on the other side, well, give us another year to think about it. but, mr. speaker, i'm optimistic

for two reasons. one, because i believe next year we'll have a bill that we won't be the 11th hour doing, but secondly, i know this majority and under the ranking member who will become the chairman is going to fight to make sure that we permanently prohibit those detainees from ever touching u.s. soil. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield a minute to -- one minute to my friend, my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight investigations, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. doctor snyder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. snyder: there's no greater honor serving the house than supporting our military families. each of us on the armed services committee take this responsibility very seriously. no one has served more honorably thank the than the gentleman from missouri, mr. ike skelton. no one is a prouder honorary marine than the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. semper fi, mr. chairman. one important provision in this bill gives military familyless the same right as civilian

families to keep children up to age 26 on their insurance. that will not occur unless this bill passes and i strongly recommend a vote for the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, the gentleman that just spoke, mr. snyder, is also leaving us. he retired. i want to thank him for the years of service that he rendered to this committee and to this congress and to the nation. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, the ranking member on the strategic forces subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: thank you. i'd like to thank ranking member mckeon for his leadership on this committee and certainly for his support for men and women in uniform and what has been in this long year of trying to get a bill passed for the national defense authorization act. i'd also like to thank our chairman, ike skelton. ike is leaving us with an incredibly distinguished career. he has led the armed services committee in an incredibly

bipartisan way. nye on both sides of the aisle people have appreciated his leadership, his counsel and his dedication to what is a strong national defense. but i must rise to point out that this bill really shouldn't be the ike skelton national defense authorization act. this should be the nancy pelosi national authorization act because it's just a shame that this house and our committee labored for a year to put together a bill that the senate never passed. what we have before us is not what came out of our committee. it's not what came out of the subcommittees. it's not what was passed here on this house floor. in the nancy pelosi fashion of running this house this bill was drafted somewhere in a back room in the capitol and then brought forward for everyone to read. this is not the way that we should be doing a bill. one of the things that's been left on the table, that should be in here, is protection of our men and women in uniform and their custody rights. we had a provision in this bill that would have prevented family law courts from across this country taking custody away from

our men and women in uniform when they return from deployment based upon their absence. there are a number of provisions that were in the bill that was passed by this house and should have remained in it. instead we get this truncated process and a bill that was drafted in a back room. unfortunately this does not serve our men and women in uniform and doesn't serve our national security. we're going to pass a truncated bill that's going to do limited things when we had an opportunity to take the year-long process of the deliberations of this body and really improve the circumstances for our men and women in our national defense. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the chairwoman of the subcommittee on terrorism, the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. for our portion of the legislation, the terrorism unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee focused on several of the defense department's most

important challenges. the fight to interrupt the flow of violent extremists and the ideological underpinnings of radicalization. the development and deployment of innovative and critical technology and defending our homeland from attacks and managing the consequences of catastrophic incidence including natural disasters. and of course trying to get our armed around cybersecurity of this nation. it has been an honor to serve as the chairwoman of the subcommittee and more importantly, mr. chairman, to ike skelton. it has been an honor to serve with you this time, these 14 years, on this committee. and i urge my colleagues to pass this bill. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, the ranking member on the oversight and investigation subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to begin by recognizing ranking member mckeon for his leadership and his thoughtfulness in this whole process of leading the house armed services committee on the minority side. i also want to recognize our outgoing chairman, ike skelton. what a tremendous legacy of service to this nation, of devotion to our men and women in uniform, i know everybody out there that has served this nation during his time in congress are better off for his leadership here on the house armed services committee and i thank him for that and i tell you, he's been a mentor to many of us on the committee. every once in a while, taking his hand, placing it on your shoulder, giving you a little advice or input on this whole process that we go through here has really affected many of us on the house armed services

committee and i thank him deeply for that. we have before us the national defense authorization bill which i'm happy to support but disappointed in the process and how we've gotten here. i'm concerned in that the house put a significant amount of effort into passing a national defense authorization act. but all the members having their input therewith, i think a very thoughtful process. the concern now is that we have a bill before us very different than the one that came before the house previously, one that had been crafted without that transparency, without that input of all the members of the committee and again that disturbs all of us. the process needs to go through where everybody stops and idea -- thoughts and ideas are incorporated into the bill. i hope in the future and i'm confident in the future that this will not happen again. our men and women in uniform deserve better. they deserve that we do everything possible to pass a national defense authorization

act that has all the provisions in there, that each member of the committee has worked so hard to put in there. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute this time to the distinguished majority leader of our house, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee. one of the great leaders with whom i've had the opportunity to serve over these last three decades. a man of great character, extraordinary intellect and unbridled commitment to the men and women who serve in our armed forces. i think all of white house have had the opportunity of serving with ike skelton of missouri have been impressed by his commitment, you aed by his depth of knowledge and encouraged for

the security of our country by his leadership. so i rise to pay tribute. this bill is named in his honor. this will be the last bill that he will shepherd as chairman. two of the members of the minority side have spoken and lamented the process that we are following today. i sare that lamentation. i say to my friends, the reason we are in this pickle is because members of your party in the united states senate would not allow us to proceed under regular order even though regular order had a majority of the votes in the united states senate. so it is nice to explain and

wring our hands, but if obstructionism is the objective in the other body, then regular order has been denied us. and we have an option. we can say they denied us regular order and therefore we failed. or we can do what we did last night, take something that's not perfect but is better than inaction. ike skelton, carl levin, john mccain worked very hard. as i understand it, the door was opened to an invitation on your side as well. i rise in strong support of this bill. not because i believe it is a perfect bill, but i believe it's a necessary bill. this defense authorization bill is about securing our nation

and strong -- in stronger and smarter ways. it builds on our strong record of putting new and better weapons into the battlefield, increasing support for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity and security for our skies and our ports and borders and looking out for our troops, our veterans and importantly their families as well. this bill authorizes crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. much better than a c.r. short term or long term. it promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our special forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. it increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the taliban in afghanistan and pakistan. because of the changing threats in the post-cold war, this bill, as well, invests in

ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation, including the president's effort to secure all, all of the world's known nuclear material in the next four years. the defense authorization bill also supports the well-being of our troops and the strength of our armed forces. it keeps tricare strong and ensures that military families can keep their children on tricare until they're 26. it also reduces strain on our forces by providing 7,000 more personnel for the army and 500 for the air force. 5,000 for the air force while helping all of the services rebuild their worn down equipment and weapons systems. this bill is an important bill for us to pass. it will pass on a bipartisan basis, and i appreciate that and i want to thank mr. mckeon

for his efforts to make sure that we pass it in a bipartisan effort. he recognizes, as i do, as mr. skelton recognizes, this is not the best process. this is -- we could have done and should have done better. frankly, we did better. seven months ago we passed a bill that has been referred to as the work product of a bipartisan effort to keep our country strong and to make sure that our men and women in uniform were well-thought-of, well cared for, well equipped and we made them as safe as possible. our responsibility is, therefore, to do the best we can. this appears to be the best we can. i'm not surprised that ike skelton never waivered for a minute in trying to make sure we pass a bill that was worthy of the men and women who risk

their lives and are ready to be deployed at a moment's notice to defend our freedom and our country. ike skelton, we are proud to be your colleague. you have served your country well. you have served this institution well, and you have been as good a friend as the men and women in our armed forces has ever had. america is indeed blessed by god and by the service of men and women of the character, intellect and commitment of people like you. thank you, ike skelton. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, might i inquire of the time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes remaining and the

gentleman from missouri has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, the ranking member on the airland subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: thank you for yielding. when i -- mr. bartlett: thank you for yielding. when i came to the congress 18 years ago i was assigned to the armed services committee. the subcommittees are determined by seniority and member preferences. we all get together in the room and we select our committees and as the more popular committees are filled, less and less opportunities are available to junior members. for reasons that i'm not sure, i fully understand the personnel subcommittee's the last to fill up. and since i was the lowest ranking person on the republican side, i ended up on the personnel subcommittee. ike skelton was then senior

enough on the democrat side that he chaired that personnel subcommittee, and those were tough times for the military. we really didn't have enough money. and i remember that ike was really stressed. he was stressed to the point that he was actually emotional that we didn't have enough money to meet the needs of our service people. i saw then a congressman who was deeply concerned about the military. i remember how all of us on the subcommittee were relieved when the appropriators gave us another $1 billion. you remember that, ike? it was jack murtha who led that fight, and we got another $1 billion for our personnel. i have now worked with ike and have served him for these last 18 years.

i've gone with him on really hardworking codels. ike, i can't imagine a more dedicated person, someone more interested in our troops, more knowledgeable about our military, more concerned about the future of our country. it's been such an honor to work with you, and i'm certainly going to support the ike skelton national defense authorization act, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend, colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on air and land forces who very shortly will be the ranking member of the entire committee on armed services, the gentleman from california, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i want to thank ike skelton for his service to our

troops. anyone who's worked with ike, anyone that's worked on this committee knows that's always his first priority, the men and women who serve in our military and they could not possibly have a better advocate for his years on the armed services committee. he will be missed. and once again, he's done his job and done it well. every year he's made sure that we get a defense authorization passed and it has not always been easy. certainly it was not easy this year but he got it done i should say with the abled assistance with the ranking member, going to be chairman, buck mckeon. we get this bill done. it's always important. it's especially important when we have troops in harm's way. in afghanistan and iraq. to get the authorizing bill done, to make sure that we give our troops in the military the support that it deserves. now, i will disagree on the process. it is wrong and just not factual to blame the house leadership for the process that we have today. we got our job done. we did it. we passed the bill. the senate didn't act on it.

the only alternative we had was to put this slimdown bill up today or have no bill at all, which we all agree is not acceptable. if the senate had acted we would have had a much better bill. we have a very good bill because of the hard work of both democrats and republicans on the committee. the one issue i want to mention is the bone of contention here and that is the issue of where terrorists can be held, tried and dealt with and this bill prohibits them from being brought into the united states. we are not going to be able to continually offshore bringing these terrorists to justice. there are legal problems that could come down on us and jeopardize our ability to deal with them in the way that we need to if we continue to have this block. nobody wants them here, but we have to find a way to deal with them. i worry that the language in this bill restricts it in a way that could jeopardize our ability to properly deal with these folks that threaten us so grateful. i hope going forward we will figure out -- gravely. i hope going forward we will

figure out to deal with that. i congratulate ike skelton. not just mr. skelton but mr. spratt, mr. ortiz, mr. snyder, mr. abercrombie, we lost a lot of folks on the top row of the armed services committee. they have worked our country so well. they have my admiration and the admiration of all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i'd like to echo the words of mr. smith in honoring all of those men that he just mentioned that served for so many years on this committee. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: well, thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i wanted to echo the comments that have been made here regarding ike skelton. you know, it is fairly rare when someone so nobly transcends political party and even persuasions to try to do

what he or she believes is right for the country, for the future of humanity, and i congratulate him and wish him the best god can give him everywhere he goes from this point forward. thank you, sir. mr. chairman, they say that the crux of leadership is being able to differentiate between the critical and the preferencial. and i believe more than anything else today that the challenge before us in this process is that we allowed the per riffial to overcome the critical, and this process has been subject to that failure on our part. to correct the record in one point, the majority says that the minority members of the senate stopped this bill. what they did was to try to resist an effort to use the national defense authorization bill as a vehicle for cultural and social engineering. and that's something that both parties should avoid doing now and in the future because i believe it is a disgrace to the country and a disgrace to the

process. our focus here should be on doing that thing that most likely protects and defends the freedom in this country and allows it to go forth as a beacon of hope. in the future i hope that we will see the national defense authorization bill protected as a bill strictly designed to defend and protect the arsenal of freedom and the cause of human freedom in general. we owe that to the american people. we owe that to the men and women in this country that are in our military and we owe it to the cause of human freedom. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to the chairwoman of the subcommittee personnel, the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. and before i briefly summarize the personnel subcommittee portion of the ike skelton national defense authorization act, i want to thank the bill's namesake. chairman skelton has my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been such an extraordinary leader. and i personally am very grateful for his mentorship. our country, mr. skelton, ike, is better for your service and you will be greatly missed. the bill before us improves the quality of life for our service members, for their families and military and survivors. i'm pleased that the chairman and the colleagues have spoken about how important these personnel issues are. in fact, we know our national security is embodied in our people who serve, and there are many important elements to that in this bill. it allows a 1.4% pay raise to keep pace with the private sector, authorizes tricare beneficiaries to extend health coverage to children up to age 26, and bars increases in medical care premiums, improving access to mental

health and other mental providers and puts in place recommendations for sexual assault prevention from the defense task force on sexual assault in the military services. i urge my colleagues to support the ike skelton national defense authorization act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, a member of the committee, who will be the vice chairman of the committee in the next congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas voiced for two minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. and i appreciate the next chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i too want to rise and express my respect and gratitude for a number of the senior members of this committee who will not be with us in the next congress. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. spratt, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor, my colleague from texas, mr. ortiz, and my friend from arkansas, dr. snyder, each of them have made innumeble

contributions not only to the committee but to national security. and, mr. speaker, i think it is absolutely appropriate to name a defense authorization bill after our chairman, mr. skelton, who over the totality of his career has made imnumeble contributions not only to this -- innumerable contributions not only to this committee but to the security of the country. i think it is unfortunate that this particular bill has followed the tortured process it had in getting -- getting here. in some ways it's unworthy of the contributions the gentleman from missouri has made over the course of his career. i think it is going to be very important for us moving forward to try to just as we return the house to a more regular order where members can make contributions, that the whole process of a defense authorization bill can return to a more regular order. i'd like to just mention a couple of provisions. one was mentioned on bringing

detainees here from guantanamo. mr. speaker, i think it's important to have that provision here, but we should remember that how we got here was a rash and irresponsible campaign promise by the president that he was going to close guantanamo within the first year. and as the administration has tried to dodge and weave its way around keeping that promise, we have had -- come to a virtual standstill on bringing those detainees through a judicial process. i hope that this bill is the first step towards making that happen, getting back to a regular judicial process for those detainees. the other provision i want to mention is the acquisition reform. an important first step to be sure, but it will be very important for this committee also to follow it up and make -- and measure the effectiveness because every dollar spent is critical. to be effective. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield a minute to

my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. taylor: mr. speaker, i come to rise in support of this bill. most of all to tell the american people what a great man this bill is named after. under his guidance, the house armed services committee, the first hearing that was held under his leadership was to address the problem of explosions to american vehicles. under ike skelton's previous secretary of defense, wanted to build 5,000 mine-resistance vehicles. first hearing under ike's watch was to discuss the possibility of building those vehicles. we set the bar at 15,000. the next day the new secretary of defense, secretary gates, said, no, it's going to be 17,000. now that number stands at about 19,000. what has that accomplished?

in 2005 the mississippi guard went to iraq. 28 of my fellow mississippians died from under body explosions to vehicles. in 2009 the mississippi guard went back to iraq. they were attacked 85 times. they did not lose a limb, they did not lose a life. because of the mine-resistant vehicles they were traveling in. on ike skelton's watch the fleet has grown by seven ships. we have friendly game of upsmanship in this chamber. i have toive ev -- to believe that ike skelton set the bar very high for you. i look forward to you doing better. ike skelton, thank you for the magnificent job you've done in saving the lives our troops. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, incoming chairman, for yielding the time. i too want to add my deep respect and gratitude to the outgoing chairman, ike skelton,

man that i've come to know and love, these four years under the tutelage of his chairmanship. i wish him and his wife all the best in this next chapter in their life. i also want to brag on the fact that the acquisition reform language made it into the final cut. a lot of work went into that, some very good folks looking forward to being a part of the monitoring system, to make sure that it gets implemented properly. as a part of that we're also anxious to continue to hold the department of defense and all of the various branches' feet to the fire with respect to audible financial statements. as you know the department of defense cannot audit its own today -- there are great folks in the pentagon working hard, looking forward to the next two years being a part that have proprocess, make sure they continue to have the resources they need to get the audit work done so that the department of defense can tell the american people that they are in fact spending the money that we so preciously allot to them, properly.

again, let me add one last thank you to ike skelton for his tutelage and mentorship over these years on the committee. we're going to miss you, ike, sir, and all the best and god speed in your next career. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has one minute remaining and the gentleman from missouri has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. skelton: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. spratt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. spratt: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in emphatic support of the ike skelton natural defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011. this bill as it fits its title makes record investments in our nation's military, authorizing $725 billion to strengthen the national security. our friends on the other side of the aisle have said that they would do things differently next year, it will be interesting to see whether or not this becomes

a high water mark for defense spending, given the deficit, debt and other obstacle, fiscal policy obstacles that remain in our future, that loom over our future. this bill fully funds operations in afghanistan and iraq while modernizing the troops to be prepared for the threats of today and the wars of tomorrow. mr. chairman, i have served on the armed services committee for 28 years. i've always believed that our first order of business is to fund the defense of this nation. this will be the last defense authorization bill on which i have had the honor of working side by side with my great friend, ike skil skelton. i will be honored to -- skelton. i will be honored to cast my final vote for a bill that funds our deployed troops, keeps our many commitments and secures the nation of threats foreign and abroad and bears the name of a real patriot, a great combrite, isaac newton skelton.

known to all of us and loved by awful us by the name of ike. i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill with this worthy name and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: and the other side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has four minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from new jersey, a member of our committee, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for wo one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you. i want to first associate myself with the remarks my friend, mr. conaway, and the research we did together on acquisition reform and i'm proud to cast this vote for a bill that's so aptly named after ike skelton. the measure of a person's achievement is not found in the pages of law books or in the anles of politics.

the measure of chairman skelton's achievements is the improvement in the quality of life for troops around the world. this morning, mr. chairman, because of you they are safer, they are better trained, they are better equipped and most importantly, i know this matters to you, their families and their loved ones are in better schools, better housing and they have better health care. the chairman has always said that each year was going to be the year of the troops. he said it every year and he meant it. because every year that he served in this congress on this committee and as its chairman, he made it the year of the troops. his contribution will go far beyond the years and far beyond this bill. it's an honor to serve with this chairman. thank you on behalf of those who wear the uniform of this country for yourselfless patriotism and service to them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california continues to reserve? the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield 30 seconds

to the gentlelady from guam, a member of our committee, ms. bordallo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the ike skelton national defense authorization act. the bill provides critical authorities for the department of defense to ensure that the military buildup on guam is implemented successfully and i especially thank chairman skelton and ranking member mckeon for ensuring that the most important parts of h.r. 44rks the guam world war ii loyalty recognition act, were incorporated into this bill. this provision is so important to my constituents and is connected to the success of the military buildup. and finally, i thank chairman skelton for his steadfast and unwavering support of guam. we will miss his leadership on the committee and in this body but it is a well-deserved honor to have this bill named after chairman skelton. and i urge support of its passage.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield a half a minute to my colleague and my friend, mr. courtney, the gentleman from connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the ways ike skelton's legacy will be remembered for a long time is the $15.7 billion authorization for ship building in this legislation which will continue this country on the path towards a cost effective goal of $314 ships which many chairmen and people who proceded him gave lip service to but under his leadership over the last four years we have steadily made progress reforming the l.c.s. ship building program and getting to two submarines a year, a goal which was set forth back in 2000 but finally with this authorization bill which will be achieved. in connecticut he gave the keynote address at the u.s.s. missouri commissioning which was a proud day for the state of

connecticut and missouri. again, his leadership in terms of getting our navy to the level which we need for a national security is something that we should all pay homage to and will be remembered for many years to come and i yield bafpblgt -- back. the speaker pro tempore: zwrire. the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from missouri has two minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i just want -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dicks: i wanted to rise today to celebrate the great career of ike skelton. he and i were classmates, came here in 1976. he went on the armed services committee, i went on the appropriations committee and we've always worked together and issue that i've always enjoyed working with ike on is the b-2 bomber, the stealth bomber.

we worked on that, we went out to missouri many times and i think that was one of the finest weapon systems that's been developed and put together on converting it to a conventional bomber which made it a lot more effective. so i just want to also say, ike had a tremendous concern about the troops and he's got family members who serve in the military and he has always been an advocate for the troops and i just want to commend him on his outstanding career and his great service to this country and for the fact that this bill is being named after him is totally appropriate and i ask everyone to support the bill. i look forward to working with mckeon next year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of the time. the gentleman from missouri has one minute remaining. the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield 30 seconds

to my friend, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: chairman skelton, the troops in texas thank you and all the troops around the world thank you. i thank you for strengthening your commitment to service men and women and their family, readiness has been your challenge. i thank you for that and strengthening the military forces, making sure they have the right, secure and safe and the most technologically sophisticated equipment, i thank you. and likewise, let me say to you for your demeanor and spirit, for the tears you shed for those who lost their lives, you never waved and for the suffer gave as a young man in the united states military, i cannot thank you enough. i come today to support this ike skelton bill and ask my colleagues to pay tribute to this american hero. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i have a minute and a half and the chairman has a half minute? the speaker pro tempore: that's correction -- correct. keen i'd like to yield him 30 seconds of my minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, as has been mentioned before, chairman skelton, mr. spratt, mr. taylor, mr. ortiz, mr. snyder, all on the top row, represent over 100 years of experience, of service, of dedication, of devotion to the troops, to those who are representing us around the world, protecting our freedoms. i want to thank hem for their service. i had the opportunity of traveling with ike, i watched him relate to the troops and their families and he just has a spirit about him that they love to see him, they're going to miss him, we're going to miss him on the committee. i am going to vote for the ike skelton bill mainly because it's ike skelton and i encourage all

members of our conference to do so. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i have no further requests for time at this moment, but i wish to add a quick note. in the poem "flanders field," there's a line that reads, to you we throw the torch for you to hold it high. i say that to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from california, buck mckeon. i pass the torch to him to make

sure that he holds it high and i know full well that he will and continue to make us proud as the chairman. i thank him for his friendship, for his cooperation and bipartisanship. i wish him well and god speed. a special note to all the members of our committee. we've been a family. it's worked well. great debates. solid legislation. but i would be remiss if i didn't say something about the fantastic staff that we have. it would be a disservice to those whether at the entry level or at the very highest level, and under the leadership of paul and previous people we have performed well. i want to thank each one of them.

thank you for this tremendous, tremendous opportunity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6523 as amended. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed -- mr. mckeon: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the anne will rise and remain standing until counted. -- yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. house resolution 1377 by the yeas and nays, concurring in the senate amendments to h.r. 1107 de novo, h.r. 6523 by the yeas and nays, concurring in the senate amendment to h.r. 628 de novo. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the first electronic vote will be on the vote of the gentleman from american samoa to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1377 which the yeas and nays are ordered.

the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1377, resolution honoring the accomplishments of norman yoshio mineta, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]