consistent with requests from the relevant member states and will not move forward with using them in other ways, end quote. so the administration owes congress a long overdue explanation of, one, who instructed the u.n. to keep and spend $100 million that was payable to the united states? two, when did they do it? and three, on what basis did they make that decision? after three months of repeatedly asking for the detailed plans and the cost and the estimates, we have received only, again, a single piece of cursory figures. this is it. the u.n. should give u.s. taxpayers back the $179 million that we overpaid. plain and simple. if the state department gave most of that away to the u.n. in some backroom deal, then we will make sure we can recoup these funds from the department.

with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to mr. king of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to this legislation and i say that as one who has voted continually for reform at the u.n., has been critical of funding procedures involving the u.n. but i'm here today to save lives. the fact, is contrary to what's been said, i don't want to be caught in a fight between democrats and republicans, between the obama administration, the state department, the u.n., between chairmen and ranking members, i am here because of the fact that this is not something that started three months ago or four months ago or five months ago. this has been an ongoing matter between the new york city police department and the u.n. and the state department. the results of an attack in this area would be catastrophic. i'm not going to go into

details. anyone who wants to check, the series of correspondents going back long before this became an issue here in congress, about how vital it was to have this $100 million in construction changes and the first avenue or the perimeter. the fact is, this is a disaster waiting to happen. and i would say to members on both sides, if there is an attack, if there is a vehicle bomb, if there is an attack in these areas that have been designated by commissioner quelly and we see hundreds of lives lost, thousands of lives lost, we're going to come back and say, well, that could have been taken care of but it was in this account rather than that account, authorized but not appropriated or it was spent by the u.n. at the direction of the state department and congress didn't have time to act in time. the fact is this is a matter of life and death. this is a serious matter. i was on the phone late last night with the heightest ranking people in the new york city police department and i was listening to them. we can have our debate back and forth. we can go back on forth on who was hiding what. the fact is i'm concerned about

saving lives, not just for new yorkers but all the tourists who visit there. the impact this would have. after people are concerned about saving money, think of very harsh economic terms, what this would do to our economy if a car bomb went off in the i have tinity specified by commissioner kelly and we saw people being burned to death, buildings coming down because we felt the money wasn't done exactly the appropriate way as far as which part of the balance sheet it came off. so i am urging my colleagues to save lives, to do what has to be done for security, for partisan politics aside. it's not just important of the cost of something, it's the importance of the value of something. so i urge the defeat of this legislation, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on europe and eurasia.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i want to congratulate her on being the new chair of the foreign affair committees -- foreign affairs committee. let me start off by saying, the u.n. has been a scandal-ridden mess for as far back as i can remember. i've been in congress 28 years and we've had scandal after scandal after scandal. the people over there that have been overpaid, comparing it to the private sector, for business, for all kinds of things, and we raise cane about it on this floor but nothing ever changes. remember the oil scandal involving iraq? remember saddam hussein and the deals that were cut and how the u.n. was involved in that? nothing ever changed. we keep throwing the money in the same direction and the same amounts year after year after year. we give them 22% of their budget. now, if you take all the countries in the world that are involved in the u.n., you'll find that we're sending a real

disproportion amount of money to them. our share should not be 22%. nevertheless, we do it year after year after year. and now we find out that the u.n. tax equalization fund, the t.e.f., was overpaid $179 million. why in the world should we allow them to keep our money? we're already paying them more than we should in my opinion. i heard what my colleagues said about the security of the place and all that. we give them more than enough money to take care of the place and to pay the salaries and to do what needs to be done over there. that is if you support everything the u.n. does. but to allow them to keep almost $180 million of our money when it's an overpayment makes no sense whatsoever. so what we're saying here today is, you know, we're just going to hold this money back if they don't return what they already owe us.

now, if we had any other creditor that owes us money or if you had a creditor in your home town you would expect that creditor to pay you back. you'd expect them to pay what they owe. but the u.n. is a different thing? why? makes no sense to me whatsoever. i've been here long enough to know that there have been problem after problem after problem with the u.n. and we've complained about it. we have done very little to correct that. but we've complained about it time and again. but at the very, very least, at the very least we should expect them to pay us back the money that they owe us. so i wish my colleagues would think about this from a logical point of view. why should we let them keep money that they owe the united states, especially at a time when we have a $14 trillion, get that, $14 trillion national debt, we're going to be $1.5 trillion short this year, and the legacy we're going to leave to our kids and grandkids is

unbelievably bad. so this is a drop in the bucket. no question about it. but i think we should get our $170 million back and i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will concur. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, madam speaker. i'm very pleased to yield there minutes to the ranking member -- three minutes to the ranking member of the homeland security committee, mr. thompson of mississippi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much. i appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. madam speaker, this is a fundamental principle that we developed in the homeland security committee, where we worked with our stakeholders to protect this country. the notion of taking the resources away from the new york city police department, a major stakeholder in keeping this country safe, does not make sense.

representative king, the new chairman of the committee, outlined in a very passionate statement how this would devastate new york city. that partnership we've created has rendered results. all of the statistics that we have gleaned on this committee indicate that new york city is the number one terrorist target in the united states. this $100 million investment with the new york police department is an investment in security. what we have here is smoke and mirrors that ultimately will render the citizens of new york city vulnerable to any potential attack. so, i call upon my colleagues to oppose this unfortunate cut in the name of getting paid back. and look at it in what ultimate

damage it will cause. the new york city police department is known worldwide for its security investments. and enhancements. but that's because of the partnership it's had with the federal government. we shouldn't punish the good people of new york for some reason with the united nations. let's talk a little bit about the united nations. we're fortunate to have them on our shore, here in the united states. that's worth a lot. we bring a lot of people to this country. thousands of tourists visit that building every day. and so why all of a sudden we want to limit the security of those individuals, among others, who visit that building just because we're trying to, quote, get some money back, well, we're bigger than that. we have to lead by example.

the best example we can do here today is to defeat this unwarranted, mean-spirited bill that does not provide any security for the good people of new york or the people who work in and around the united nations building. you know, that building was put here in 1951. it's been here a long time. we've been that beacon of hope for world order and now all of a sudden we jeopardize it in a document that clearly we understand that will not really cost any more money. so i yield the balance of my time back but i ask for a vote in opposition of h.r. 519. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. we're going to continue to reserve for a while because we want to get the times a little more equal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance

of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the gentlelady from new york in whose district these security improvements are being made, mrs. maloney, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for leading -- yielding to me and for leading on so many important issues for the safety of our country and world peace. i rise in strong opposition to this legislation which would, i believe, make new york city more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. and this includes people that i represent who are visiting or live around the u.n. compound. the bill would diversity funds that the u.n. has -- divert funds that the u.n. has and have planned to use for much-needed security enhancements to the u.n. compound and surrounding perimeter in manhattan. i just spoke earlier today with

police commissioner kelly who says these fund ares are absolutely critical -- funds are absolutely critical to maintaining homeland security. homeland security should be the number one priority for this country. and not having these funds would put at risk the lives of people who work there, people who visit and people who live in the area. we know that threats of terrorist attacks are real. new york city has been attacked twice and the police commissioner told me today that there have been 11 attempted attacks since 9/11 which they have stopped. so it is a real threat. and as a host country we have a responsibility to protect the diplomats and those who work and visit the united nations and we know that the u.n. is a terrorist attack target across the world. most notably in 2003, the attack in iraq, and in 2007, the attack in algeria.

so this is important. this vote, if you support the funding and the continued homeland security, will save lives. i would like to point out very importantly and place in the record a statement from the nonpartisan c.b.o. and they have said that this will not, and i quote, will not provide any savings to taxpayers. so if we're not providing savings to taxpayers, why are we not willing to speak out and vote for saving lives and security? i urge a strong no vote on this legislation. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does the gentlelady continue to reserve her time? the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, madam speaker, may i ask about the remaining time on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has seven minutes remaining and the gentlelady from florida has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. berman: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield a minute and a half to a former member of

the foreign affairs committee, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. ellison: madam speaker, h.r. 519 is wrong headed and should be defeated. this bill cuts the united nations tax equalization refund act as part of a gimmickly -- a gimmicky house republican youcut proposal. according to the c.b.o., a nonpartisan official score keeper, h.r. 519 has absolutely no affect on the federal budget. it saves nothing. not a penny. so what would this bill do if enacted? it would put urgently needed security upgrades to the united nations headquarters at risk. this bill would undermine the protection that we are trying to provide to the people who live in new york. haven't they suffered enough already? in fact, the state department

has already committed $100 million from this fund to help the new york police department who request the support to secure the perimeter against terrorist threats. and these threats are serious, madam speaker. u.n. authorities in iraq and algeria have already been attacked. and i must say, madam speaker, this is part of an extreme agenda that is anti-united nations from the start. so let me just say in conclusion, often my colleague and i, mr. king, don't agree. but we agree on this one 100%. mr. king said, and i quite agree with him, that this bill would undermine security in new york city, it's wrong and indefensible and i'd say that i think he's absolutely right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, i'd like to yield for a unanimous consent request to a gentleman you may be familiar

with, mr. mack of florida, who is the chairman of our western hemisphere subcommittee. mr. mack: i ask unanimous consent to insert a statement into the record in support of what the chairwoman is doing, chairman is doing on the u.n., i think it's a disgrace that we continue to fund an organization like the u.n. when in fact they tend to hinder propress instead of help it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm please t.d. yield one and a half minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. clarke. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. berman. thank you, madam speaker. as a new yorker and member of the homeland security committee, i rise in strong opposition to this misguided,

ill-advised legislation that would limit the new york police department's ability to protect united nations citizens in the most at-risk city. part of the $179 million that the other side is seeking to cut is to enhance security around the u.n. compound in new york city. as the only member of the committee from new york city, i know firsthand the vital role nypd plays in protecting not only u.n. workers but residents and millions of visitors each year. i have a concern to make sure that the nypd is adequately funded to meet the challenges of the u.n. and new york city. it is unfathomable that we would consider hindering the nypd's ability to protect up with of the most important

areas of the city. the nypd protected visiting dignitaries and the city in the meeting for decade. we must -- we should not take away the resources need for nypd to protect citizens and prevent and mitigate terrorist threats. we are reminded that new york city has been the target of multiple, significant terrorist plots. the united nations facilities located arn the globe have been targetted by terrorists. this is a vote to expose new york city to extreme risk and recklessness at best. i urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided and potentially harmful legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i continue to

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: you need to look more care pli at the you it is cut program. the u.s. cannot withdraw from the world nor can we be the policemen of the world. but we can protect the people at the u.n. in new york. will you withdraw from china trade? no. reduce the pows of the fed? no. will you cut frunds from the pentagon or the war in iraq or the war in afghanistan? no. will you cut money for u.s. states around the world? no. but you'll cut funds for new york city police to protect american citizens. when you do that, you cut off your nose to spite your face.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members to direct their comments to the chair. the gentlelady from florida continues to reserve her time. the gentleman from california mr. berman: may i inquire through the chair, we have two more speakers. shall we go with ours? i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: there are 15 million americans unemployed. yet we're passing up another opportunity to work together to try to create jobs in our country and what are we doing? we're passing a spending reduction bill that the congressional budget office says doesn't have any impact on the budget at all. we're not saving any money.

we're passing a bill, or we're going to pass a bill that the new york city police say is dangerous because it impairs his ability to do that. and at a time when the most dangerous area of the world is literally in flames, and calling out for cooperation between our country and other countries around the world to try to calm things down, we're sending the signal to the most important international institution that our participation is somehow contingent upon domestic politics. we should be doing a jobs bill, not putting our imprimatur today on a bill that's another exercise in politics. the right vote for the country is no. i yield pack the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 519. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: with that, i yield two minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes and 15 seconds. mr. royce: we do get $179 million back into the treasury, which the c.b.o. doesn't count as savings. it's obvious that these curt upgrades should be funded through the u.n. capital master plan, that's the $2 billion, five-year effort to renovate up headquarters in new york. we do know by raiding the t.e.f. over payments owed to american taxpayers, rather than funding the construction properly through the capital masters plan, we do know the state department and u.n. will stick american taxpayers with 100% of the bill rather then

the -- than the 22% we would owe if it was funded through the proper channels. that's what the debate is about. it's not whether the u.n. headquarters in new york should have adequate security. it's how the costs of that security should be apportioned and whether the funding process can bear minimum scrutiny. u.s. overpames are owed to the united states and the state department should truct thetown return that money. now, when you're -- when the u.n. is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars, in this case, the u.n. actually told us about this, that's good to know, but one thing has kept it from being returned to the treasury, the u.s. hasn't asked for its money back. when we americans are overassessed or overpay the i.r.s., we get a refound. when the obama administration overpays the united nations, they say keep the check. we had a foreign affairs meeting and said the u.n. can't

give you an honest accounting of their annual budget, it's between $5 billion and $6 billion annually. hundreds of millions is literally considered a rounding error there. this is no rounding error to u.s. taxpayers. it's $179 million, china carriesless than 3%, they should at least be asked to carry their 3% of the costs going forward. let's take this step, let's ask for the money back that they told us at the u.n. that we have overpaid and let's put it into treasury at a time when we're running a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: madam speaker, we only have one remaining speaker. you close, right? ms. ros-lehtinen: we have two speakers, mr. berman, so i'm pleased to yield, madam speaker, 45 seconds to the gentleman from florida, my

colleague, mr. rivera. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. rivera: thank you so much, madam chairing thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the policy that the u.n. return the $139 million. we're the u.n.'s largest financial supporter, we pay most of the cost of the u.n. peacekeeping and most of its administration costs. now the obama administrationry fuses to let them pay us back. kofi annan noted the failure of the u.n. council, noting they made changes not to protect human rights but to protect themselves. this is still the case today as some of the worst regimes of human rights hold powerful seats on the u.n. general counsel. -- council. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california.

mr. berman: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: let's go through some of the issues and sort of disaggregate all of this. we have a bill that seeks to withhold funds unless the secretary of state certifies she's gotten back $179 million for the fund. the fund doesn't have $179 million because $100 million has been designated to this perimeter security on f.d.r. drive. at the request of the new york police department. why did they to it that way? because to do it now in the context of the overall u.n. reconstruction will save at least $100 million over doing it when we finish appropriating. why didn't we do an appropriation? if anyone has noticed, the congress didn't exactly do appropriations this fiscal year

system of we are left in a situation where the administration makes the decision to detonate $100 million from the fund to do something that if they don't do it now will cost twice as michigan to do it later through the appropriation process and to tack the rest of that fund and offset it against our fiscal year 2012 dues. put the strangest part of this bill, in addition to the arguments that have been made, is it seeks to withhold the payment of dues that the c.b.o. says will have already been paid and there will be nothing to withhold. fiscal year 2011 dues will be paid before this bill is ever law and you can ask the secretary and require the secretary to withhold a certain amount of dues. but once you've paid it all, there's nothing to withhold. it's really a poorly crafted bill, not contempt rainus with the situation that exists now, which seeks to jeopardize an

important security project and start us going down the road to simply trying to not pay but it won't even work to not pay the dues that we owe through our assessed contributions. i yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, i'd like to yield the remainder of our time to mr. duncan of south carolina. how much time does he have left, madam speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 30 seconds. ms. ros-lehtinen: he's an auctioneer, he can do it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: only in washington can we have a debate over how the u.n. and new york needs $100,000, while arguing it won't result in savings for the united states taxpayer. the truth is the c.b.o. is restrained in its analysis and was of -- because of those rules it's forced to observe, it reaches the conclusion that having the u.n. repay $179

million would have no impact on our balance book. how can getting $79 million from the u.n. not be counted as savings? does anyone who has ever balanced a checkbook believe this to be true? of course not. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time having expyred, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 519? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being -- ms. ros-lehtinen: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are order. 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, s. 188 by the yeas and nays and h.r. 519 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. denham to suspend the rules and pass s. 188 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 188, an act to designate the courthouse at 198 first street in yuma, arizona, as the john m. rolle -- roll courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is will be a 15-minute vote. [ctioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 429, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 519, on which the yeas a nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h. reform 519 a bill to secure the return to the united states the $179 million overpaid into the united nations tax equalization fund as of december 31, 2009, and

for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 259. the nays are 9. thirds 2/3 not being in the affirmative, the rules are not suspended and the bill is not passed. the house will be in order. will the members please clear the well and clear the aisles.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: madam speaker, by direction of the republican conference i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 78, resolved that the following named members -- mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the reading is dispensed with. without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent that the following co-sponsors be removed from the permanent record as co-sponsors of h.r. 536. jeff duncan, south carolina,

three. virginia foxx, north carolina five, adrian smith, nebraska 3, these members intended to co-sponsor my legislation h.r. 455 the 10th amendment regulatory act. mr. cole: a clerical error add to their names being added as original co-sponsors. these members never agreed to co-sponsor h.r. 536. i ask unanimous consent that the record reflect that they were never co-sponsors of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection, the co-sponsors will be removed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

the chair would first ask members to clear the well. please clear the well.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. miss jackson lee: madam speaker -- ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: will members please take their conversations off the floor. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. let me say, madam speaker, many occasions we come to speak of the needs of our constituents and sometimes we come to celebrate. i'm delighted to rise to celebrate the groundbreaking for

our very favorite houston soccer team, houston dynamo, that has broken ground for a 22,000-seated stadium in the 18th congressional district serving all of texas. and i'm congratulating them for many reasons. first of all for the outstanding team, wins that they have had, but also because of the community outreach and the inspiration that they provided. i'm delighted to have been with the mayor of the city of houston, the county judge, elected officials celebrating the fact that we are creating $100 million in economic opportunity, creating jobs, and also partnershipping with the starkly black college, texas southern university, where they will be playing their football games. they are the 2010 strike winners. congratulations to the houston dynamo and we were excited to have one of the champs in our community who will also bring a boxing program into the stadium. it's a family event.

we love soccer. it's a growing, growing sport in this country. and maybe texas, even though it may not be at that stadium, will get the world cup. i am congratulating our local community. i'm very glad to be a part of it in early support of this stadium and working with mr. oliver. i congratulate all the present leadership. we in the federal government will work with them to continue to build jobs and provide an economic engine for our community. again, congratulations to the houston dynamo. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, christmas is supposed to be the happiest time of the year, especially for children. but it wasn't for an 8-year-old girl who was raped by an outlaw in her own home. her rapist was salvador severa,

a known criminal illegally living in the united states. in 2003, he was an ms-13 gang member. he was arrested and deported back to el salvador. since we have open borders, the child rapist was able to come back into the united states very easily and unnoticed. in november of 2010, he was arrested for public intoxication in virginia but rather than be held in jail and deported, he was released back into the streets of america. because his illegal status was not discovered by a computer system. one month later salvador raped an innocent 8-year-old girl. disgusting crime would have been prevented if we really secured our borders, that we deport criminal aliens, and kept them from returning to the united states. tell the parents of this 8-year-old girl that our border security plan is working. that's just the way it is. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to discuss what's on every american's mind and that is a job. my own family, they are thinking constantly about will they be able to keep their job, what's going to happen in the school system? are there going to be layoffs? i know in the communities i represent that have very high unemployment on the minds of every family, will there be a job for me? over the last more than 2 1/2 years now, the democratic majority and now the democratic minority has focused on this issue, like a laser, our focus was on creating jobs in america. immediately upon taking office in 2009, president obama and the democratic majority here in this house put forward the american recovery and reinvestment act. that law created by most every economy estimate more than two

million jobs, or maintained more than two million jobs in america. it was an enormous boost to the american economy. that together with other programs that were developed during that period of 2009 stabilized the american economy. it certainly didn't get us out of the recession, but it prevented the great depression that could have occurred. this year in 2011, once again focusing like a laser on creating jobs in america. it's the president's intent, he spoke to this issue here when he spoke to us at the state of the union, he was across the street from the white house just two days ago talking to the chamber of commerce about this issue of creating jobs. jobs in america. this is where we are coming from, if america is going to make it, we are going to have to make it in america. great examples of this are once again being seen. i have seen that my colleague

from detroit is here and he would care to join us in a few moments, we'll be talking about a very unique advertisement that occurred at the super bowl. one in which imported from detroit is now the message across america. it's not that chrysler disappeared, it's actually that chrysler continues to exist, along with general motors, because the obama administration and the democrats here in the congress reached out and gave a boost up for those two great american corporations. and today they continue, they continue to produce jobs in america because they are making cars in america. . our theme is make it in america. that's a whole series of policies that are encompassed in this schematic of make it in

america so america can make it. we're all for trade, we think it's an extremely important element in growing jobs and growing the economy. it has to be fair trade. when we look at countries such as china, we question whether indeed it is fair trade. the democrats in this house last year and we will try once again this year to pass a currency reform piece of legislation. that would force the department of commerce to take into account the unfair curpcy manipulation that china is engaged in. economists estimate that it's perhaps 40% undervalued. who can compete against that? not very many. and therefore we see goods flowing into america and america -- american cash flowing into china. tax policy, extremely important. last year, without the help of any of our republican colleagues, we passed legislation that became law,

that ended a $12 billion a year tax break for american corporations that are shipping jobs offshore. what was that all about? you mean to tell me that american corporations actually got a reduction in their taxes when they shipped jobs offshore? yes, they did. but not anymore because of the democratic determination to keep jobs in america. energy policy, labor policy, education policy, intellectual property, infrastructure. all of these elements, all seven of these elements, are key ingredients in creating jobs in america. you can hear some people say, well, it's all about the private sector. let the private sector go and there'll be plenty of jobs. doesn't happen, never happened. you can go back into the history of this nation. it's always been solid, good public policy, connected to the

private sector that created the great surges in the american economy. take, for example, the railroads in america in the 18th -- in the 19th semplingry. in the mid 1800's, during the great civil war a bill was passed here in congress, signed by president abraham lincoln that did two things. that piece of legislation created the intercontinental rail system by giving government land to the rail companies so that they would be encouraged to build those intercontinental railroads. the section bill passed created the research, and that's the intellectual side of this, that's the land grant institutions. we must continue that long history of america's preist sector working in concert with public policy to create jobs in america. that's what we want to do with our make it in america program that creates strong, middle

class jobs. i'd like to turn to my colleague from the great state of ohio, marcy kaptur, if you would join us, tell us what is happening in the great industrial belt of america that we intend to rebuild? >> congressman gir -- ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. garamendi, you have made such a difference in this congress, the californian people did a great job sending you here. this happens to be the week of the super bowl. when we think about that, the big winner in the super bowl this year was the commercial by chrysler corporation for its innovative two-minute spot featuring the chrysler 200. to the sound track of "detroit" and the rap artist eminem, it's a celebration of detroit and the resilience of this incredible, incredible city and i see that their congressman is

here on the floor right now. mr. garamendi: if you would be so kind as to yield, i notice representative clarke just arrived, new in congress, not new to detroit. what's going on in detroit? should i import my car from tokyo or detroit in absolutely not from tokyo. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. garamendi. yesterday i did talk about the great tv ad where the rapper eminem highlighted the grittyness and ingenuity of detroiters that has given us the ability to make some of the finest vehicles in the world. i also mention how that spirit of detroit is really rooted in american values. those values that cherish our god-given rights to life, to

liberty, to the pursuit of happiness, i'm not just bringing these up as a constitutional exercise, or as a discussion of american history. if you don't mind, i'd like to share with you, this is really about my dad. my dad would be 100 years old if he were living today. back during the 1930's, during the great depression, he risked everything to immigrate to the u.s. from india. he risked everything to come over here and he was attracted to detroit so we could get a chance to build cars in the ford foundry. the heart he brought to his job was the same heart that transformed the city of detroit into the arsenal of democracy, that helped save this country and save this world from fascism. as i mentioned, it's that same heart that i believe will restore financial prosperity to our country and financial

security to american families. if we make it in america. because we've got the insight, we've got the hard work, we have the research and the capability to build those cars that are powered by electricity, to help build those homes and those buildings so they'll be heated by the sun and to manufacture the best products in the world that will provide economic stability to our country, but also provide prosperity to the world. you know, there are many people here watching us who -- whose family came here to this country because they had a dream. there are others like my mother's people who came to this country against their will. but either way, when you come to america, you have the right to have an opportunity to pursue happiness.

whether it's happiness of having the peace of mind of being comfortable here or enjoying the excitement of pursuing your own personal ambition. the pursuit of happiness in this country means that all of vuss the opportunity to live our life as full as we choose it and you see that opportunity to really use our intellect, our mind, our body, and our spirit, that's what makes american manufacturing the most extraordinary achievement of modern civilization because american manufacturing is not just about cheapening costs or taking someone's technology. it's about harnessing the genius that's within all of us. it's about unleashing the ingenuity that's inherent in human kind system of that's why i urge this congress, when we consider these policies right here on the board, whether it's who to trade with, who to train, how to tax, that we do all of this to focus on making

it in america. because when we do that, we can truly have enduring prosperity for all americans and american families. right nowing our families are feeling so insecure. the answer is in our roots. it's in american manufacturing. when we make it in detroit, we make it in america. thank you so much. mr. garamendi: thank you so much, representative clarke. your passion for this issue was well displayed in that detroit chrysler advertisement. i would point out before i turn back to ms. kaptur that chrysler and yen motors were saved from bankruptcy -- were saved as an american manufacturing icon by policies of president barack obama. it was his policies, supported by the democrats in the house and the senate that allowed for the support that those two

corporations needed to reinvent themselves so that there could be jobs in america. ms. kaptur, you come from an area where manufacturing has been really the essence of the economy for a long time and you've been supporting legislation, introducing legislation, could you share with us those things that you're working on now and the legislation you're pushing through this house? ms. kaptur: let me say, congressman garamendi, it's great to have congressman clarke here from the wonderful city of detroit. i love that commercial, i think it captured the struggle of our country through the lens of detroit. and i might say toledo, just a few minutes south of detroit. it talked about how the city had been to hell and back and the trials and triplelations that manufacturing in our rehas experienced over the last quarter century there is without a doubt, as congressman carter said, that detroit was

the ars until of democracy and still is. all along i-75, from detroit down to toledo and down through ohio an into areas south, the automobiles, the tanks, all of ourover land vehicle the expeditionary fighting vehicles for the marine corps, all of that is all along this that region. in toledo, i have to brag a little bit, my hometown, we are home to the jeep, the general purpose vehicle. rosie the riveter had presence in toledo, ohio, for instance in championship spark plug, where our mom worked, or the company from which our dad retired. one of the most important challenges we have in this congress is to have patriotic aptalism. to reward investment in

america, through our tax code. not to letout sourcing win but to let insourcing win and the way we look at the pooks here at the national level. in addition to that, i have a bill to renegotiate nafta. back in 1993, nafta gave the green light to globalization andout sourcing and every other trade agreement that comes down the pipe outsourced more jobs than in sourced more jobs for us. we got away from making it in america. in sector after sector, closed marks in j pan in china, in south korea snuffed out production here as their production grew. but it's reached a breaking point. it's reached a breaking point in our country where we've had to, through defense legislation, saved the strategic metals industry, beryllium, titanium, magnesium, all these prnt metals, both in the defense as well as the commercial sector, we could

lose to other plays. our ability to do machine tools, the president's investment tax credit to save the tooling which is located within 300 miles of detroit and toledo, that's what america has. is it any wonder that unemployment is 9% when you have backo trade deals that outsource more jobs? so i would say the one bill i haven't mentioned, which is short-term, but we have so many people who are long-term unemployed. this morning i asked chairman bernanke of the federal reserve, what do we do with people that want to work in detroit, and tee low dee doe and arn the country. i said gives your suggestions. he said, you know ordinary care ought to tie unemployment compensation to job training so pem can be retooled into the work force in a meaningful way. so the issue of training, the issue of education, is a very important one, congressman

garamendi that heout lined there. mr. garamendi: if i might interrupt for a second and pick up on that subject of education. we're now in this chamber on this floor in congress and the senate engaging in a debate about how the federal government can support these critical educational investments. the proposal that we anticipate being made tomorrow by our republican colleagues would significantly reduce the funding for the work force investment boards across the nation. these are local, -- local organizations put together in counties and cities to support re-educating workers who have been laid off from jobs that have gone offshore. those educational programs, career education, vocational education programs are crucial toup grade the skills of our current work force and the work force of tomorrow.

and so as we go through this debate about deficits versus taxes versus cut we need to keep in mind the critical investments that are made every year and have been for decades by the federal government to support things like education. without education, which is the most crucial of all investments, this nation cannot compete. the point you brought up, ms. kaptur, is so important, the re-education, the upgrading of skills and support, i would add, from the government, that's going to be debated here, watch carefully, america. watch carefully what is happening here in congress. and make sure that you participate in this debate. it's not just about balancing the budget. it's about giving americans the opportunity to get a job in this case education. thank you for allowing me to interrupt. ms. kaptur: it's my privilege. i wanted to reinforce what you

were saying about education and work force investment act. in the counties that i represent, whether it's one-stop shopping in ottawa county, every single county has work force investment boards that try to connect to our community colleges and institutions beyond high school to help people transition into education as well as those who fall out of the work force and have to retool. and i was shocked to hear today on the other side of the aisle they can't bring up a bill to extend trade adjustment assistance to workers who have been booted out of their jobs because their companies moved to mexico or korea or china. and workers are thrown out of work and that program expires february 13, and they were unable to bring up a bill to extend that for the millions of people across our country who have lost their jobs in manufacturing because they have moved abroad. i just think that that's simply unconsiderableable. i say to the gentleman that --

unconscionable. i say to the gentleman that the issue of linking our community colleges, apprenticeship programs, our university programs, g.e.d. programs to help people move into and frankly many of our small business programs to help people move into the private sector is something that is so vitally needed and cannot be done in this economy in areas of high unemployment without the federal government partnering with them. mr. garamendi: i know you have spent much time on energy policy issues. it's a critical issue for the nation's security. it's an issue that really speaks not only to climate change, which some people believe isn't it real, i happen to think it's a fundamental problem facing us, but even if you are not into climate change, you have to be aware that we have a very serious energy security issue in the united states. one that really puts our nation at risk. at any moment we could see the shutdown of the flow of oil from

one part of the world and, bam, we have a crisis in america. we also know that we are shipping off to countries, many of whom are not our friends, $1 billion a day. $1 billion a day of hard-earned american money is flowing offshore as oil from the petrodictators of the world flows into our country. so the american energy policy is of profound importance and all across this nation, and you have spoken to this also in the past, all across this nation people are saying, we need an american energy policy that brings our energy sources on shore and gives us the opportunity to capture the green technologies of the future. solar, wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermometer growcies -- thermosystems.

nuclear. biofuels, are out there in the future for us if we aggressively put in place the public policies that support the creation of these new technologies and the production of those machines, of those solar systems, of those wind turbines, of those advanced biofuels, produce them, manufacture them in america. part of your -- i think you were telling me in your area there is an effort to build some of these pieces of equipment. could you share with us what is happening in ohio? ms. kaptur: for 25 years we have been trying to give birth to the solar sector. the toledo region, northern ohio is home to one of the three solar platforms on the continent. you don't live in california. no, but i historically represent the glass industry which advanced into the photovoltaic

industry. the hottest stock on wall street a couple years ago was first solar, a company is about to send out a first shipment to italy this spring. we have other companies like healthy and haze that are in the process of bringing up their factory floors. one of the solar inverter companies hiring and looking for financing to expand their operation. there are many companies that didn't,ist -- didn't exist 25 years ago when we started. i have seen what's happening. but my fear, my fear is that the intellectual property will be stolen. that it will be no different than the automotive industry. you can't stapele it down. that we have to have a balanced trade policy and very tough intellectual property protections. i see your intellectual property proposal up there. i completely agree with that because if they take our property, our intellectual property, we lose our ability to

continue to manufacture and be suppliers globally. i wanted to say, congressman garamendi, you referenced oil. people say why should we incentivize solar and hydrogen and biofuels and all these sectors as if we weren't subsidizing the petroleum industry by allowing them to book their royalties or not book their royalties and be charged taxes as though our entire military establishment were deployed around the globe in order to protect those ceilings so that petroleum can get in here for refining. we have to realize we are already subsidizing a sector that is going to be more and more diminished as this 2 isst drentry -- 21 is it century moves forward. either you live in the shell of the past or break out of it and create a whole new independent america. that's where we need to move. mr. garamendi: let me say a couple things.

you hit a hot button there. i'm on the house armed servicings committee. how much money do we spend protecting the flow of oil? the department of defense didn't come up with an answer, but rand corporation, one of the consulting firms said, i think we can do that. they came back with a number that's about 15% of the total defense wugget. -- budget. we are talking over $100 billion a year to protect the flow of oil. that's in addition to the billion dollars a day, which is $365 billion that we are also sending overseas. we are looking somewhere near half a trillion dollars a year because we are, as you said, stuck in the last two centuries energy policy. here on this -- here in this chamber a couple weeks ago, standing behind me, was the president of the united states. and when he said, we should end the subsidies we are giving to

oil companies and transfer those subsidies to the energy of the future, the green technologies, i stood up and cheered. my friend, i guess it was my date for the night, is that the word, my date for the night, a good republican, kind of stood up and clapped his hands because he's a moderate republican. but nonetheless, it's true. it's billions and billions of dollars a year that we are subsidizing a very successful industry. you don't need to do that. they don't need our subsidy. they are the richest industry in the world. fine, end the subsidies. bring that money back and put it into the green energy so that inure -- in your area will have the opportunity. i'll add one thing here and keep this microphone for a second. at this moment, tomorrow, the

house republicans will put forth their budget which calls for, which we anticipate, i hope i'm wrong, be happy to apologize tomorrow that i'm wrong, but it's anticipated that their proposal will terminate many of the tax breaks that are given to encourage solar, wind, photovoltaic, advanced biofuels, all of those new green energy technologies. i hope i'm wrong. i really hope i'm wrong because how else can we build our future energy security unless we create the new energy sources and if we fail, those jobs will be created overseas and we will import. ms. kaptur: would the gentleman be kind enough to yield. there are some people who live in the past and others involved in inventing the future. when you have the major trade deficit category imported petroleum, and you have marines and soldiers dying all over the

world to protect that, pretty soon you begin to think, you know what? this picture has to change. every time our country's gas prices go up over $4 a gallon, we go into deep, deep recession. we are trying to crawl out of one just now. and in 2007, 2008 gas prices went over $4 a gallon. people forget that. the mortgage foreclosure crisis followed that. but the point was, it happened to us again. how many times do we have to suffer, our people suffer before we realize the source of the problem? and i had a great experience i had to go back to the university of wisconsin, my alma mater, and i gave a commencement address a few weeks ago, and it was not a bad speech. it was a good speech, but one of the lines i used was, an america just simply must grasp the future and restore our energy independence. that was the loudest applause i got. in this massive audience.

i thought the american people know it. they know it. we have to do it. we have to make it happen. mr. garamendi: the people of america understand that our future lies in a secure energy source. i'm carrying two bills this year that i actually introduced last year. i'm going to say goodbye to my good friend from ohio, ms. kaptur, thank you so very much for joining us. i introduced two bills last year that deal with this issue. our tax money has in the past been used to buy photovoltaic cell systems for houses and businesses, wind turbines, and other green energy equipment that is manufactured offshore so that our tax money is actually used to subsidize businesses that are in and manufacturing that is in other parts of the world. i'm going what sense is that? let's use our tax money to help american businesses who manufacture wind turbines here in america. in my own district we have two

major wind farms, huge operations, producing enormous amounts of power. however, many of those turbines in recent years and great steel towers, 400-feet high are made overseas. yet our tax money subsidizes the importation of the steel towers, the importation of the turbines, and all of the equipment that goes with it. i say, time-out. time-out. this makes no sense at all. so the bills, one of the bills i introduced simply says that if you want to take advantage of a federal tax subsidy, which i hope we'll continue in the future, to put a photovoltaic system on your roof, to install a wind turbine, to do advanced biofuels or to build a solar thermal system out in the deserts in the west, then it must be american made equipment. no more buying offshore

equipment using our tax dollars. you want to use your own money, i don't care where you get that photovoltaic system or wind turbine, but if you are using american tax dollars, it must be made in america. the other piece of legislation is similar, in my own district one of the transit districts that buys buses and moves people around decided that they needed new buses. well and good. they are using the local tax dollars. they are using some federal tax dollars from the gasoline and diesel tax, excise tax as all of us pay when we buy a gallon of gas, it's 18.4 cents. if you are buying diesel it's 24.4 cents for every gallon you buy. much of that money goes into building and maintaining our roads. good. about $3 billion of it goes into buying buses and trains and supporting public transportation. good. i asked him, where's the bus

being made? oh, we have a wonderful bus built in belgium. i go, no, don't you understand in the -- in san francisco bay area, one of the very few bus manufacturers left in america, in your own area, people who commute on your buses, work in that factory, and you're buying a bus from belgium rather than buying a locally made bus that is just as good? he said, we like the size of the back window. there ought to be a law. there ought to be a law. that if it's our tax dollars that are being used to buy equipment, buses, trains, planes, whatever it must be made in america. after all, how can we create and re-establish the great manufacturing sector of america if we simply export our dollars and get a bus, good bus, no

doubt about it, has a nice back window, but is not made in america. i'm very thankful that this congress in passing the american recovery and reinvestment act known as the stimulus bill, put in a provision concerning high-speed rail. now, for -- since 1988 when i was in the california legislature, together with my colleague here, jim costa, we offered legislation then that established the high-speed rail commission in california. we are patient people. 23 years ago, but in the recovery act there is money for high-speed rail. . and a provision that says that this mup can only be spent on equipment manufactured in america. good. wonderful. that's the kind of law we need. we need to support american manufacturers. we don't build high speed rail

systems in america. they're built in china, they're built in japan, they're built in european countries. good for them. but if they want part of this action, if they want to build the train sets or other pieces of the equipment, then establish a manufacturing plant in america. come to america. i'll note, i've seen it in the advertisement the full-page advertisements on "roll call" and "politico" where some of these companies are advertising, we'll make it in america. excellent. here's where public policy intersects with the private sector to create good, middle class manufacturing jobs in america. it's the public policy that sets the stable. let the businesses go out and build it. but remember, it's public policy. and i'm going to -- i'm looking for one of my friends who is supposed to join us here from iowa, he may show up, but i want to go back through this again.

these are critical public policies that affect the manufacturing sector in america. fair trade, free trade, there's a difference. it's easy to harm and ms. kaptur talked about this earlier to harm american work wers trade policies that allow jobs to be shipped offshore without an opportunity for american manufacturers to participate here at home. also this is an issue of currency policy, china, many people, including me, believe and economists believe, that china's currency is undervalued by as much as 40% who is going to be able to compete with china when that kind of currency policy is in place. we passed a bill here, it didn't pass the senate, hopefully it will go to the senate an the president that forces the department of commerce to institute a tariff when these kinds of currency

policies persist. taxes, we talked earlier about the tax policy of ending tax subsidies for american corporations that ship jobs offshore. that's done. in the tax bill of last year was another incentive for big businesses and small businesses to invest in capital equipment now. it's the law. capital equipment purchased by a business this year and the last three months of 2010 can be written off against profits in the first year. that is, the year in which it is invested. an enormous encouragement to businesses in america to invest in american capital equipment that creates jobs down the way. i just heard from some farmers in my district that they're out buying irrigation systems, replacing pumps, irrigation pipe and other kinds of systems because they want to take advantage of that tax law and so they are encouraging the

production of those facilities. we just talked about energy policy at length here and there's much more to discuss on energy. the labor issues, we must have a well-educated labor force and that ties into education. the most fundamental of all investments is education. if we don't have a well-educated work force, one that's prepared to compete in every sector this nation will not be able to compete. if we want to make it in america, we've got to make sure that our current labor force is trained and retrained to take the new jobs that will be created and for tomorrow's labor force, the men and women that are in school today that they have the very best education. it's not happening. this is a great tragedy in america. we are not adequately educating our children. it is a very serious problem. it's pervasive. and in the discussions in this house, in the committees over the next month and a half this

issue is going to come back many, many times, as the effort to cut the federal budgets and education goes forward. i will add that in the education secor, for those in higher education, a very, very important bill passed the congress again without republican support, signed into law by the president, that would end the subsidy given to private banks to run the student loan programs. those subsidies are over. the money is plowed back into the student loans, increasing the availability of student loans and decreasing the interest rates on student loans. a wise policy that creates a much more efficient student loan program for kids that are in the higher education system. intellectual property was discussed by my colleague, marcy kaptur. critically important in california with the high tech industries, the computer industries and the like. and this last one down here, infrastructure, is profoundly

important. america moves on infrastructure. it moves on streets and highways an rails and airlines and airports, all of those infrastructure systems are financed in part by local governments, by state governments, and by the federal government. one of the very first actions taken in the new 12th congress was a rule from the rules committee that would significantly reduce the availability of money for infrastructure and once again, as we begin to debate the expenditure deficit issue, expenditure tax and deficit issue, this issue will come back. so for americans, please listen. listen to what's happening in washington with regard to the budget issues. it's not just cut and slash and burn. it's what's the money being

used for? what are the using the money for? are we using it to bill our roads, to build our transportation, to bill our infrastructuring our water systems, our levee protections, flood protection systems? are we using it in some wasteful way? if it's wasteful, don't do it. but if it's a critical investment, what happens if we don't make that investment? what happens if we don't educate our kids? what happens if we don't build the water system or the sanitation system? we have to think about what happens if we don't make these investments. we also have to think about what happens when we invest over $100 billion a year fighting a war in afghanistan. you want to make a cut? i'll tell you where i'll cut. i'll cut right there. over $100 billion whafment if we took that money, leave some in afghanistan, for economic, social development. focus like a lay sor on the

terrorism. some there, some in pakistan, some in yemen, some in somalia, some in america. like a laser on the terrorist organizations but get our military out of afghanistan. bring that money home. invest in our own infrastructure. personal to me, i live in the sacramento san joaquin delta. we're dependent on the levees for floot protection system of we go to the army corps of engineers and say, we need to have these systems designed. well, we can't do it right now. why can't we do it right now? we don't have the personnel. where are the personnel? their building things in afghanistan and iraq. ok. life's about choices. this floor, this congress is going to make some real serious choices in the weeks ahead. those choices are going to be before us. as this issue, the deficit, as of this issue of the budget cuts comes into focus, what

will be cut? pay attention. pay attention to this. when we do a tax policy that gives billions of dollars, $750 billion tax break to the wealthiest 1% of americans, don't come back to this floor and tell me that that's a good thing and a bad thing to educate our children. when we're on this floor an we want to spend $100 billion or more fighting what will ultimately be an unsuccessful war in afghanistan and tell me we cannot build our infrastructure to protect our people from floods. to build our transportation system. it's about choices. it's about choices. and we're going to make those choices here on this floor. and over the next several weeks, and months ahead, i can guarantee you that the democratic minority in this house will be talking about this issue. make it in america. because if america's going to

make it, we have to once again make it in america. we have to make sure that yen motors and ford and the great manufacturing sector of america is strong and vie prant and has the support it needs. it has the federal policies in place that support those manufacturing jobs and no longer puts american manufacturing at a disadvantage. so stay tuned. this is going to be a constant thematic we'll be carrying for the weeks ahead because we're determined that the federal policies support make it in america. mr. speaker, i yealed back the plans of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 300 p and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speak ear's apoment of the following member

of the house to the committee on cooperation in europe. the clerk: mr. burgess of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. bachus of alabama for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california mr. gallegly, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gallegly: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. gallegly: mr. speaker, as the author of the legislation creating the ronald reagan centennial commission, i've asked -- i was asked by the reagan foundation to host this special order this afternoon and i'm honored to have many of my colleagues here to join us on the floor today. as a fellow californian, i had the great privilege of spending some time with president reagan in my early years here in congress. and i can tell you that those times will be etched in my mind forever. coincidentally, my own personal residence happens to be almost ad jay cent to the ronald reagan presidential library. only a few hundred yards away in simi valley, california. i can't say enough about how grateful i am for the opportunity to have known ronald reagan. i could go on for hours, but we

have other members that i want to yield to this afternoon from all across the country and stand back and yield to my colleagues and then have enough time where maybe i can wrap it up. at this point, i would like to yield to my good friend, steve stivers from the state of ohio for two minutes. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from california for yielding me time. in my office, i have a picture of president ronald reagan with a quote from january 25, 1988, and it says, after all our hard-fought victories earned through the patience and courage of every citizen, we cannot, must in the turn back. we will finish our job. how could we do anything else? we're americans.

these thought provoking words from president reagan still inspire us today. we're facing a number of challenges in our country today, a tough economy, fierce competition for jobs, from nations like india and china. and fighting two wars with determined enemies who are committed to destroying the american way of life. president reagan's words remind us that while we face difficult channels, we must face them together, not as democrats or republicans but as americans, because we're all in this together. his actions lived up to his own words, he rolled up his sleeves, worked with members on both sides of the aisle and provided leadership to move america forward. today with a republican house, a democratic-led senate and administration, we only need to look to president reagan's work with speaker tip o'neill on social security reform in 1983 to learn an important lesson.

it shows us today that you can be successful in making a good faith effort to work together toward a common goal if you work together and don't lose sight of your core principles. american is a -- america is a shining city on a hill and we'll always be living president reagan's legacy. you know, we need to honor his optimistic spirit by living and leading by his example. i'd like to join my colleagues in honning president reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth. he was truly one of our great presidents, a man who understood what it meant to be an american leader. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, steve. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california on the other side of the aisle, my good friend, john garamendi. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i was on my way out the door when i realized that this

special order was going to be on president reagan. and as i was walking out the door i recalled a picture that's been on my family's wall for a long time, it was a picture of president ronald reagan, kind of standing to one side, and he's bending over and shaking the hand of my daughter. who was in the white house, this was in the 1980's when i was in the california legislature. and embodied in that picture is so much the character of ronald reagan. the smile, the bright eyes, the enthusiasm, greeting a young girl, she was about 8 years -- about 7 years old at the time, and you can see that he wanted to spend that moment with her. and to give to her his enthusiasm for life, his enthusiasm for america. and that picture's always been there and err now and then some of my -- every now and then some of my democratic friends,

including the president, has said, what's that doing in this house? i said, that's a very special moment in the life of my daughter, christina. but that's the way ronald reagan was. i was in california when he became the president and actually came in with the legislature the day he left office and he set the stage in california for much of what is good there and he certainly did that for america also. so i join with my colleagues on the republican side and colleagues on the democratic side to say, a very special man, a very special man in the life of america and a very special man in my life and in our daughter's life. thank you for the time. i yield back. thank you. mr. gallegly: i thank john very much. i'd just like to say in listening to the gentleman from california, when we were working on this bill, it got a little complicated at the end. but you know what the simplicity part of making this bill work? i did not have one individual on either side of the aisle say no,

elton, i can't be a co-sponsor. i don't think there's any time in history that i've had as many people agree on -- we can't get that many people to agree on what day of the week it is around here. and it was very special to me to hear the comments from the folks on the other side of the aisle. while they may have disagreed with him on certain policy, i don't know that anyone disagreed on the man's integrity and his compassion for this country and how committed he was to make it a better place. and with that he was able to get a lot of things done on the other side of the aisle that he wouldn't have otherwise been able to do. thank you very much, john. at this time i'd like to yield to my friend, the gentlelady from kansas. jake jake thank you, mr. speaker, and -- --

ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. with those words president reagan felled not only a wall quiding a city but an ideology -- dividing a city but an ideology dividing the world. i carry a piece of that wall with me today and though 20 years have passed, i am struck by the enormity of what this used to represent. and the currently, conviction and character of the man who stared down the soviet empire and won. president reagan was not just a, he was the great communitier -- communicator. but it wasn't the style that made the difference. his content and corresponding action. too often rhetoric is thrown around in this town with little thought and even less action. as we celebrate this 100th birthday of president reagan, i desire that we can remember that not only did president reagan

inspire us with hope for a new morning in america, but he took real action that led a country waiting in gas lines, on the brink of nuclear war, and reminded us all that we truly are a shining city on the hill. with that i yield back. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, lynn. at this time i would yield to the gentleman from south carolina, jeff duncan, for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank my colleague from california for hosting us out there recently at the reagan library. what an inspiration it was to be at the reagan library and to understand what president reagan did and the man ronald reagan did for liberty.

not just in the united states but also around the world. today i join my colleagues in honoring what -- honoring one of my true heroes, ronald reagan. it's fitting that we pay tribute to reagan during a time when conservatives are once again waging battle against dangerous and out-of-control federal spending. president reagan understood the dangers of government expansion all too well. in his famous "a time for choosing" speech, he called america to action because, and i quote, if we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. this is the last stand on earth. this was our rendezvous with destiny. as we in the congress who uphold reagan's values continue toward that rendezvous with destiny, we should keep reagan's thoughts about government at the forefronts of our minds. as i walk the halls of congress, his words reverberate in my ears

every day. that man is not free unless government is limited. you have to wonder what reagan would say to the out-of-control government growth as we see in this administration. i learned a lot of politics and about politics from president reagan. and one quote has resonated with me about how we should live our lives. he said that we should not carry a banner of pale pastels but one of bold colors which make it unmistakeably clear where we stand on the issues. i've always tried to live my life that way so let me be told today and say in honor of president reagan, i believe in god, i believe in the united states constitution, i believe in that government spends too much money, borrows too much money and indebts the american people. and i believe that by protecting liberties in this country, that our nation once again will be a shining city on the hill. when president reagan spoke of that shining city, it inspired

americans to greatness. it inspired them to strive for something that is beyond comprehension at times. he spoke about a new day in america. i think that honoring president reagan and remembering what he did inspires me as a congressman and others to help us once again be a shining city for america, a shining city for liberty, a shining city for those who believe in freedom. let us once again strive for a new day in america. thank you, mr. reagan. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, jeff. why don't -- i really enjoyed you coming out to california and getting an opportunity to really enjoy the reagan library. it's truly a place that every american should have an opportunity to visit at one time or another. it's pretty inspiring. thank you. at this point i'd like to recognize michael grim, michael

-- michael grimm. michael? mr. grimm: mr. speaker, i'd like to join my colleagues in celebrating the 1 u.n.th anniversary of the birth -- 100th anniversary of the birth of ronald ragen this past sunday. president reagan has left a lasting mark on all -- our world, inspiring people to turn to democracy. he often spoke of freedom and made it a driving force behind his foreign policy. during his presidency, reagan was instrumental in the collapse of the soviet union. he worked tirelessly and with the words, mr. gorbachev, they're down this wall, he helped bring freedom to people in the soviet -- under soviet control. he left behind a legacy known for the spread of democracy and

freedom throughout the world. reagan also understood the value of conservative economic policies. in a 1982 address, he said, and i quote, we don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough. we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. 30 years later this message couldn't be more true. while reagan may be best known for leading our country through a strong economic recovery or for the fall of the soviet union, the great communicator was known for his optimism. i hope that americans can once again find that optimism as we move forward to put power back into the hands of the people. by returning to the same conservative principles on which reagan relied, i am optimistic

that we can restore the honor, individual liberties and economic prosperity that once defined our great nation. mr. speaker, thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, michael. as we know, michael is from the great state of new york so we have both coasts covered today, from sea to shining sea. thank you, michael. at this point i have another great californian and a new member and it's my honor and pleasure to recognize my good friend from california, jeff denham. mr. denham: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to one of our nation's greatest leaders, president ronald reagan. and, congressman gal >> i, you truly are privileged to -- gallegly, you truly are privileged to work so close to ronald reagan in the area, as well as to his library.

this past weekend on his 100th birthday, americans across the country remembered president reagan's legacy, not only as governor of california but as a 40th president of the united states. in tough times president reagan was a true leader who inspired millions of americans with a bold vision to return greatness to our country. while focusing on slinging the size of the federal government, re-- she ringing the size of the federal government, he -- shrinking the size of federal government, he spread the principles of democracy across the world. a true believer in liberty, freedom and limited government, president reagan taught us important lessons and led with a conviction that continues to encourage us today in the 112th congress. president reagan will always be remembered and celebrated not only by californians, but by individuals worldwide. i yield back my time. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, jeff.

at this point, rick crawford from the great state of arkansas . mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. it is with great pride that i rise today to speak in honor of the legacy of president ronald reagan. while running for this office i was often asked why are you conservative? why are you conservative? my answer was always, ronald reagan. as a soldier i was stationed in a unit in pennsylvania and i was tasked several times with secret service details protecting the president. and there was one in particular that i remember, september 17, 1987, when he gave the address at the bicentennial of the constitution at independence hall in philadelphia. i was literally standing in the shadow of history and as a 21-year-old soldier didn't fully appreciate it. as i look back on that moment now, i fully appreciate what president reagan had to say. in his speech he said, the founding fathers had the presence of something higher

that enabled them to write the constitution. he said, quote, it was that ideal that enabled them to rise above politics, self-interest, to transcend their differences and together create this document, this constitution that would profoundly and forever alter not just these united states but indeed the world. we can learn a lot by looking back at president reagan's speech. president reagan always remembered the principles and sacrifices this country was built upon. . we walk these halls with the sacrifices of our founding fathers in mind just as president ronald reagan did. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gallegly: now from ronald reagan's home state, great state of illinois, randy hultgren. mr. hultgren:

>> thank you it is a privilege to honor one of my heroes and bring greetings from ronald reagan's birth place and his boyhood home. i represent those areas back in illinois. i was there and was able to be at his birthplace and boyhood home and heard the memories that they have and the roots that were developed there into one of our greatest presidents ever, ronald reagan. as i look back 30 years ago to 1981, i see times are similar today as they were when ronald reagan took office. it was desperate economic times. it was very discouraging unemployment news and also was a very dangerous world that we tasted and ronald reagan came in and had an impact and turning our world around and bringing hope again. i see in ronald reagan several

things. he clearly was a man of faith. almost 30 years ago next month when he was shot. we were so grateful that he survived and did well through that. and through that lesson and through that horrible experience, ronald reagan said he dedicated his life and his presidency to god. he was a man of faith. he was a man of optimism. he saw the opportunity in america's future was not in government but in the american people. he was also a man of vision. i appreciate his statement that it's morning in america again and i see that same opportunity again, where our days are brighter ahead than they were in the past because of the great american people and their spirit. ronald reagan had three big goals when he entered the presidency and had focus on these three goals. when you talk to people at the time, he was the only one talking about these things or had the idea that we could be

successful, one of those was restoring our economy and getting people working again. he wanted to restore american exceptionalism and recognized that we are a great nation because of our great people and he was committed to defeating communism and his strong voice and strong presence against the ussr showed and was successful because of his diligence, focus and vision. and we are so thankful it is a different world today because of ronald reagan and i looked back at what he accomplished. the midwestern roots he developed in illinois went so deep. i see it in the people there, a commitment to service and brighter future. all of those things were borne and bred and continued on through his life in california and right here in washington, d.c. it's been my honor to recognize one of my heroes on his 100th birthday and to say thank you,

president reagan. thank you for all you have done and thank you for the hope and future we all enjoy because of what you have done. i yield back. mr. gallegly: mr. speaker, how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 39 minutes remaining. mr. gallegly: at this point, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, freshman member and good friend, andy harris. mr. harris: i want to thank the gentleman from california for giving me this opportunity. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. mr. speaker, perhaps those were his famous words, words which meant a great deal to millions of people. but his speech at the gate in berlin that june afternoon touched me and my family personally. as many of you know my immigrant

parents were victims of communityist regimes in eastern europe. my grandfather was in a camp and my mother fled just before the red army seized control of her that it i have country. they, like ronald reagan, understood that communism, especially the soviet brand of communism meant a life of restriction, oppression and violence or cold-blooded murder. while some derided president reagan when he took on the ussr, it was a point of inspiration for the harris family. his courage and unwavering belief has immortalized him to those who witnessed and lived through one of the most deadly regimes in the history of mankind. mr. speaker, on behalf of the harris family, i want to thank

president reagan. may his legacy always remain a beacon for those around the world who seek the asylum of freedom and liberty. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. mr. gallegly: at this time, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to my very good friend from the state of texas, tyler, texas, as a matter of fact, judge gohmert. mr. gohmert: thank you, my friend from california. at fort beening, georgia, 1978-1980 we saw the military being cut, demoralizeded. our u.s. embassy in iran was attacked and hostages taken and begged iran to long them ago. interest rates were rising from 12% up to 20% as my wife and i purchased our first home.

inflation and unemployment were both in double digits. the carter administration decided to deal with overrelines on foreign oil by asking people to wear sweaters at home and leave the heat turned down lower . so, then as now, the price of gasoline skyrocketed. we in the u.s. army could not publicly express our dismay over our dismal leadership, because it is a military crime to be disrespectful of the commander in chief. in 1980, a new day dawned with the election of ronald reagan. our hostages were released when president reagan took office and we had a new-found respect from other countries. tax-cutting policies took over and unemployment and interest rates all came down. our military began to be respected again and feared again, which provided much

needed protection for america. the bible says, joy comes in the morning. it truly was morning in america. thank god for the life and the gift of ronald reagan. i yield back. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, louie. now i would like to -- yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, my good friend, ken calvert, who helped to bring air force one to simi valley. mr. calvert: i thank my good friend our our library is located. we are proud of it. mr. speaker, today i rise to honor and pay tribute to the 100th birthday of the late president of the united states, ronald reagan, a man who deeply loved our country, who through the course of his life changed

the world to a better place. upon taking office, president reagan initiated sweeping economic reforms to combat double-digit unemployment and inflation. his policies ended the recession and provided one of the long time economic booms in u.s. history. i hope to do that very soon. america is facing a 35-year-long war at that time, cold war and president reagan never shied away from speaking in defense of freedom. he delivered his courageous address near the infamous berlin wall and said, mr. gorbachev tear down this wall. and the wall would come down one year after president reagan left office. president reagan brought so much greatness to the world and two years ago, as a californiaian working with mr. gallegly, i initiated the efforts to bring the statue of president reagan

to our nation's capital. those who visit, i encourage you to visit the statue. it's a fitting tribute to our former president of the united states. the statue is a constant reminder of his legacy. today, as we honor his life, we will always remember his words and pledge to forever preserve his vision of america as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see. god bless america, god bless ronald reagan and thank you for the time. mr. gallegly: thank you, ken. now i'd like to yield time to my next door neighbor in the rayburn building and friend of mine and only senior member to me today, dan burton, who personally knew ronald reagan very well. the gentleman from indianapolis, indiana, dan burton. mr. burton: thank the gentleman for yielding. let me just say we all talk about what ronald reagan did as

president and great things he did for the country and the world. but i want to tell you a personal story of mine. my mother was a wait tress for 18 years and my step father went to the seven grade. i told them i was going to run for congress and if i got elected, i was going to take them in the front door of the white house and introduce them to the president of the united states. i got elected to the congress of the united states and i called the white house and got a hold of reagan's secretary and i told her the story about how i promised this to my mother and how she worked for 18 years and about my stepfather. she said let me talk to the president about it. she said the president can see you on this particular day. i called my mother and stepfather and i said i'm going to take you through the front door of the white house to meet the president. my mother loved ronald reagan as an actor.

i have her hand in one hand and my stepfather and they are both shaking, they are very common folks and going to meet the most powerful man in the world and her great actor favorite. we go in and when we walked in the oval office, ronald reagan stole my heart forever and i'm going to tell you why. he came up and looked at my mother and me and put his arm around me and said, miss kelly, i want you to know your son is one of the brightest young men we have in congress and i know you had to wait on tables and i know he shined shoes and i know you had a tough time. we had a tough time in my family like that, but i know things are going to be great and you ought to be very proud of him. and i kept thinking, how does he know all this. he called my office to get information so he would make my mother feel proud and happy. they took those pictures. and my mother carried those pictures with her until the day

she died. from that moment on, i would have done anything for that guy. he could walk on water. he was not only a great president, but a great human being. thanks for the time. mr. gallegly: thank you, danny. we have a member here from ronald reagan's home state and that's bob dold from illinois. one minute. mr. dold: i thank the gentleman for yielding. times have changed but familiar challenges remain. we must strive to make our government smarter, protect america in a dangerous world and create jobs here at home. as we enter a new ira, we look to the past for guidance, to the man from dixon, illinois, who redefined our party and reshaped the world and we look forward always with the optimism and

competence of our 40th president. at a time when the world stood at the intersection between freedom and tyranny, president reagan's leadership made it clear that the american path was the right way to go. as we work to create jobs and rein in spending, it is critical this congress and all americans stay committed to his vision. ronald reagan trusted the american people, believing that we possess the strength of character to freely lead our livings, to grow our businesses and create jobs. as i talk to people back home in my district, one constant i hear is the desire for the federal government to simply stop making things so difficult on them, to get out of the way. today, we face great challenges, massive deficits, a weakened economy and businesses struggling to provide jobs. moving forward, we need not just a dose, but a full commitment to the principles of individual liberty and free markets

championed by president reagan. i believe we need to empower our citizens to create new opportunities for growth. today, we admire president reagan for his eternal optimism and firm belief in american exceptionalism. i thank the gentleman for his time. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, bob. you know, one of the things that creates a challenge for us on a special order like this is we have so many folks that want to speak and think back about what a great man ronald reagan is. so i only have so much time. i want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to recognize ronald reagan this afternoon. at this point, my neighbor from california, good friend, gary miller. mr. miller: thank you forgiving me the time. i know you're honored to represent the library and our personal friends of the family and that speaks volume to your character.

i rise today to honor the amendments of the -- and honor the late ronald reagan. i think many members of congress and politicians speak volumes for the man when they stand before a crowd and say, i am a reagan republican. when you can leave a legacy like that behind, because not many people say they're a miller republican or a gallegly republican, but a reagan republican speaks volumes for who the man was. as we commemorate his birthday, i'm honored to reflect on his many accomplishments as a leader and person. as president ronald reagan believed in the american dream and when he talked about the american dream, he always had this huge smile on his face because he believed in the american dream. his wisdom and leadership of promoting freedom, prosperity and compassion and respect for all individuals guided our great nation during times of both tranquility and turmoil. president reagan's strong belief in a limited government and fiscal responsibility should serve as a model for us today. as president he refused to deviate from his principles and strong belief in power of the

free market. his success in reducing taxes led to an unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. in the area of foreign policy, ronald reagan's support for a strong national defense strengthened america's standing in the world. his belief in that america should serve as a beacon for democracy and freedom and it's unrelenting. the reagan administration touched against communist regimes and the symbolic end of the cold war and a liberation of millions across the globe. as we we reflect on the life and legacy left by ronald reagan, his astounding words rf he solve bringing hopes to our nation. it is my hope that president reagan's vision to our nation will be long remembered and revered. i'm honored to represent this man in california and say he's a hero and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gallegly: thank you, gary. the next gentleman i'd like to introduce, scott tipton from the state of colorado, i had the

real honor of showing scott and his wife around the library just last weekend and we had a great time and i'm sure you can attest to what a great venue that is and a tribute to a great man. mr. tipton: i thank the gentleman for yielding and indeed it was. thank you so much for your hospitality. that was exceptional. members in 1976 i had the honor and pleasure of serving as the yink youngest delegate to the national republican convention. during that i listened to ronald reagan tell us go out and communicate to the world that we may be few in numbers than we have ever been. but we carry the message that they're waiting for. his words inspired me to the realization that ours is a nation of ascend ensy and filled me with a hope for the future. like then, the future of our country now depends upon our present actions and our ability

to deliver a powerful message. our message is and must be clear. we cannot continue down a path of reckless spending that satisfies government excess while enslaving future generations to insurmountable debt. it's time that we roll up our sleeves. for while many may have never met a government program that they do not like, it is time that we get to work cutting spending. we must embrace reagan's prudence and heed his warning that government always finds a need for whatever money it gets. and remember that it is our responsibility to tend that fragile flame of liberty so that our children and grandchildren may know brighter days. thank you, sir. mr. gallegly: thank you, scott. at this point i'd yield a minute to the gentleman from south carolina, tray gouty. tray.

mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor a modern day forefather who rekindled the foundational beliefs of our country. a leader who earnestly believed in american exceptionalism and the durable power of individual aspirations. at a time when the prevailing mood in our country suggests that our best days were in the past, a time when the challenges seemed larger than our capacity to meet them, president reagan gave us a reason to hope, through his words, through his actions, he forced to us take a hard look at ourselves and in doing so recapture the eye keels that make this made it -- ideals that made this nation great. hard work, perseverance, personal responsibility, the collective belief that when working together greatness is always within our grasp, one by one he reinspired the robust spirit of optimism. this sustained us as individuals and unifies us as a country. he was a founding father of the new america and for that we honor his memory and remain

forever grateful. mr. gallegly: thank you very much. mr. speaker, would you be kind enough to advice me how much time we have left? -- advise me how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 22 minutes left. mr. gallegly: thank you very much. at this time it's my distinct honor and pleasure to introduce another californian, the gentlelady, the leader of the minority, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. gallegly, for calling this special order, to give us the opportunity to join in a bipartisan way, to celebrate and pay tribute to what would be the 1 u.n.th birthday of -- 100th birthday of president ronald reagan and do so with great pride of the california delegation. as you all -- as we recall, it

was a year and a half ago that we gathered in august of 2006, the california legislature passed a law in a bipartisan way to have the president reagan representing our state as one of the two statutes in the capitol, just a year and a half ago again in a bipartisan way we celebrated the life of president reagan by welcoming this statue to the capitol. so for the last few years we have been building in a tribute to the president. it's impossible to talk about president reagan and the optimism he had for life and the love he had for our country and his patriotism without talking about mrs. reagan. they shared one of the great love stories of our time. mrs. reagan in recent years has turned that love into action, speaking powerfully out about stem cell research and doing so she has saved lives, found cures and given hope to millions.

today as we pay tribute to president reagan, we also honor mrs. reagan for her service to our nation and for her love of her husband. and what would be his 100th birthday, we remember president reagan's optimism for our nation, always believing that america's best days are ahead. and we share his patriotism, his life of service to our country. and to honor him, a ronald reagan centennial commission has been established and i'm pleased to recognize three house appointments, two republican, one democrat, to a reagan centennial commission, i thank them for their service to the legacy of president reagan. congressman elton gallegly, congratulations to you, congressman aaron shock, one of the newest members of congress and youngest, and congressman sylvester reyes who probably served in that capacity. again, as a californian we take great pride and with that,

ronald reagan was not born in california but from california, that his life of service and patriotism is recognized in the capitol and that today we send our deepest regards and respect to mrs. reagan in celebration of the president's 100th birthday. again, thank you, mr. gallegly, for making this possible. mr. gallegly: i thank the gentlelady, our leader of the minority, and fellow californian. thank you. paul gosar from the great state of arizona. paul. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i stand here today to honor president ronald reagan and to commemorate his hope, optimism and eternal belief that america is truly the greatest country in the world. reagan once said, it is not my intention to do away with government, it is rather to make it work. work with us, not over us. stand by our side, not ride on

our back. government can and must provide opportunity, not foster it, not smoggetter it, foster productivity, not stifle it. ky think of no better time than the present to listen to the wisdom of reagan's words. we are at a turning point in our nation and the american people are asking for our government that works with the people, not one that picks winners and losers. i am forever encouraged by the words of reagan and will always be inspired to keep his dream of a smaller, more nimble government alive. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gallegly: diane black, a new member of the great state of tennessee. diane. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the great legacy of our 40th president, ronald wilson reagan. as i watched some of the coverage of the president's centennial, i found myself filled with the same hope and

idealism that he inspired in me over 20 years ago. during the eight years he was in the white house president reagan faced great challenges, but was always optimistic that the greatness of our country and its people would bring us to a brighter day. a truly one-of-a-kind leader, president reagan inspired freedom throughout the world and kept the american dream alive and the -- and burning brightly for all us. he reminded us that democracy is a precious gift, but one that is dependent on the dedication of all americans. he believed strongly in american exceptionalism and reminded us that as citizens of such a great nation we had a responsibility to be a beacon of hope to all of those around the world who do not enjoy the same freedom. all of these years later his ideals still stand true for all of us and his message is just as urgent today as it was in the past, perhaps even more so.

president reagan is a personal hero of mine and i want to work with my colleagues to keep his ideals of a smaller government, commonsense government alive here in washington. president reagan believed that the people of this country are the best hope for the future, not the government or its bureaucrats. he believed that the ideals of self-government that this nation was founded on was one of the greatest ideas of history and that by giving government back to the people, our nation would become stronger and more prosperous. like reagan, i too am optimistic. i believe that our best days are still ahead of us. and that a smaller government that answers to the people will let america thrive again. as we face the challenges ahead of us today, let us remember president reagan and with hard work, we can get this country back on track to a brighter morning. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gallegly: thank you, diane. my good friend and freshman

member from the great state of florida, dennis ross. and also i might add, a fellow member on our committee on judiciary. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, today i rise to pay tribute to president reagan on his centennial celebration. as our country's 40th president, no leader in modern hiftry has had a more lasting and greater impact in shaping america's policy on economics, national defense and social issues. throughout his time as a public servant, president reagan championed the core values of lower taxes and less burdensome government that stimulated the economy and brought this country out of a long recession. reagan's firm belief in a strong national defense inspired future democracies all over europe and led to the defeat of the evil empire which ended the cold war and brought pee peace with russia. . he became a role model for all americans with sense of humor, his sense of compassion, untiring belief in unlimited freedom and respect for the

unborn. president reagan was a leader of extraordinary character, courage and vision. he changed our great nation and never tired of firmly believing that america's best days were ahead. happy birthday, mr. president. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gallegly: thank you very much, dennis. larry bucshon, new member from indiana. indiana is well represented here this afternoon. buck buck i thank -- mr. -- mr. bucshon: today we honor ronald reagan's 100th birthday on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives. this is the people's house and ronald reagan was the people's president. president range championed the individual by lowering the tax burden on america's citizens and promoting free markets, actions that resonated with me as a young college student. as a 19-year-old in 1981 it was

president reagan's optimism about our future and clear conservative message that guided me to become a republican. what stood out the most to me about president ronald reagan was his conviction and steadfast leadership in pulling us out of the cold war. i am honored to be able to stand here today on the house floor in celebration of a great leader, president ronald reagan. i yield back my time. thank you. mr. gallegly: kevin brady from texas, long-time friend and one of our best baseball players on the congressional baseball team. kevin. mr. brady: thank you, mr. mr. brady: before i refuse to take your questions, i have an opening statement. that is one of the many clips we remember from the great communicator as we mark the 100th anniversary of his birthday, we reflect on his

accomplishments, his leadership and tough economic times and his ability to bring us together with his good humor. during his presidency, ronald reagan walked across the aisle to cut tax rates and getting washington off the back of our job creators. he believed as he said, entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for all the economic growth in the united states. he said concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. those two statements of president reagan's were never more true than today as we have a much greater and bigger washington bureaucracy than we could have ever imagined or afford. president reagan bleevets we grow our economy by getting washington out of the way, not spending more tax dollars. he knew that fiscal responsibility was key to our freedom and he said if we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. the america economy is at a

crossroads. but the good news is we know a better way to the future, thanks top ronald age and. i yield back. mr. gallegly: mr. speaker, i need to watch my time. so how are we doing? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 minutes remaining. mr. gallegly: tim walberg from the great state of minnesota. mr. walberg: we're close but from michigan. i rise today to remember a great man and a great president, ronald reagan. although president reagan's 100th birthday would have been celebrated this week, i'm reminded how clear and timeless his principles of limited government and individual freedom remain. many of his ideas ring as true today as they did when i first heard him speak so many years ago.

beginning in 1984, i had the pleasure of meeting president reagan several times as a member of the michigan legislature. first time i met him is when i had the honor of welcoming him to michigan on behalf of the house of representatives and the republican caucus. though i forgot most of my planned speech in greeting him, he treated me as a colleague and expressed an interest for our state. his warm and kindness is what i will always remember about him personally. i always left believing after subsequent meetings, believing more strongly in america's exceptionalism and knowing that commonsense principles would succeed here and abroad when attached to character, curege and grace. i'm certain that his timeless principles, when followed, will endure for many, many years to

come. may god bless the history and memory of ronald reagan and the country he loved. and i yield back. mr. gallegly: scott from the great state of tennessee. mr. desjarlais: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker. my colleagues have done an excellent job in paying tribute to ronald reagan's life and many accomplishments he cheefed throughout his -- he achieved throughout his presidency. in the words of john dunn, no man is an island entire of itself and with all the accolades we bestow on president reagan, we must remember nancy was a key part of the reagan team. she was always there to provide the president with unconditional support, which no doubt served

as a source of his strength. i believe president reagan would find any tribute to him inadequate without recognizing the person he described as the companion without whom i'm never quite complete or happy. so thank you, mrs. reagan, for the role you played in guiding our country through difficult times and ensuring that america remain a shining city upon a hill. i yield back. mr. gallegly: bob illinois schilling from president's home state. illinois. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. dreier: out of reference ronald reagan i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 79, resolution providing for consideration of

the bill h.r. 514 to extend expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriot and reauthorization act of 2005 and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorist agents of foreign powers and roving wiretaps until december 8, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentleman may proceed. >> today, we remember our nation's president. he would have been 100 this year. president reagan hales from my home state of illinois and he has spent much of his childhood growing up in the dixon era and our area, we believe had a little bit to do with forming the great communicator. ronald reagan was famous for

saying government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. rage and -- reagan stared down the soviet union and demanded they tear down the wall. he nominated the first u.s. supreme court justice in judge o'connor. president reagan is one of my heroes because he showed what can be accomplished when the best interests of the company are placed ahead of party affiliation and we need more of this. mr. speaker, i am proud to be standing here today to celebrate president ronald reagan's 100th birthday. i yield back my time. mr. gallegly: now it's my honor and pleasure to recognize the gentleman from illinois and i don't know if you were born when rornled reagan was first

elected? mr. shock: i was not. mr. gallegly: but you knew who ronald reagan was and i heard you speak about him. the gentleman from illinois, aaron shock. mr. shock: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the deference. i was not born when ronald reagan became president but what a tribute to ronald reagan this is. rarely in congress do we run out of time when we are talking about an issue, but republican and democrat time has expired. i had prepared remarks i was going to make in tribute to the president from my home state. i represent eureka college. so much has been said that we have run out of time and i can't think of a greater tribute, east coast, west coast, midwest, republicans, democrats has taken time to come to the floor and i thank you for organizing this hour. mr. gallegly: i would like to

recognize your tribute to ronald reagan the other night at the reagan library. it was very inspiring and an honor to you there. mr. shock: i like california weather. i yield back. mr. gallegly: austin scott from georgia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the house. i just want to say this about president reagan. he understood that it is the american, not the government that makes america the greatest nation on earth. it's time for this body to tackle tough issues and follow through on tough decisions and if i can just read his own words, let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time that in our time, we did everything that could be done. we finished the race, we kept them free, we kept the faith. mr. speaker, i yield back the

remaining time. mr. gallegly: next we have my good friend from the state of virginia, bob goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding and i also want to tell him how much i enjoyed visiting his congressional district less than two weeks ago and visiting the reagan presidential library, which is a fabulous recounting of the life of the man who i think was the greatest man of the 20th century. he re-instilled the great economic interests of this country and most importantly, he instilled in us his eternal optimism in america. in his address, he envisioned the shining city he invoked countless times and observed, we weren't just marking time, we made a difference and made the city stronger and fiscal year and left her in good hands.

all in all, not bad at all. not bad reflects the modesty of the man but not the mag i any tude of his -- magnitude of his accomplishments. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes are remaining. mr. gallegly: i yield half a minute to the gentlelady from new york. ms. hayworth: the power of his vision was so strong, a mere 20 minutes after he took the oath of office, our iranian hostages left the airspace of that country because they knew when he was elected that america would not stand down from his commitment to them nor to democracy. now is the time for all of us to take renewed inspiration from

president reagan's example. he articulated american exceptionalism and the american dream morel quently than any president in deck, more eloquently than any president in decades and we face tremendous challenges in this country today. and i thank the speaker and the chairman for this time. mr. gallegly: thank you, nan. steve scalise will have one half minute. mr. scalise: thank the gentleman from california for yielding and it is an honor to pay tribute to ronald reagan, especially remembering his 100th birthday. it was special to be in the gentleman from california's district going to the presidential library, actually walking through that air force i plane that took president reagan to germany where he demanded that mr. gorbachev tear down

this wall. he pulled us out of the 1970's and we need that optimism here today. while he is no longer with us, ronald reagan's legacy endures today as to how we can get to that shining city on the hill again. thank you for yielding. yield back. mr. gallegly: i would like to say in closing. i know we have less than a minute left. that there are so many things that i would like to express, but i thought it was really important that we had this nation represented from sea to shining sea and we did it this afternoon from all of our speakers from states california, new york and everywhere in between. i would like to close and it just seemed appropriate this morning as i was pulling into the rayburn garage, i came in a little early this morning and there was a car that had to stop for something for a minute and i don't normally read bumper

stickers, but that bumper sticker said it all, i miss ronald reagan. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announce policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from district of columbia, ms. holmes norton for 30 minutes. ms. norton: i rise to claim a half hour this afternoon to speak about the citizens of the nation's capital who are full and equal citizens of the united states of america, that nation's capital that was born with the nation itself.

was born with the constitution. among its oldest citizens are the citizens of this very city where the congress does its work. now there is a complicated relationship between the federal government and the nation's capital, but one thing has never been complicated. the founders and every american ever since have understood that the citizens of the nation's capital are entitled to the same constitutional rights and democratic rights as every other american citizen. . now, i come to the floor because i think many members

who are incumbents who may have forgotten, and there's the largest class of new members who may be surprised by what they may be toobt experience on this floor with respect to the local jurisdiction that they know nothing of and have nothing to do with. the new members have come with a special distate -- distaste for federal interrention, even boo federal affairs, and i respect that. i think that they perhaps would be among the frs members to recognize that the powerful federal government should never snatch local control from a local jurisdiction. indeed, you may be about to

experience something that is so much of a surprise that it's a kind of out of body experience. when you're asked to actually consider a budget that this congress hadding in to do with, with every living set was raised by the people i represent. you may be asked to overturn local laws simply because they are different from the laws you would have passed in your own local jurisdiction where there is no federal imprimatur on these local laws at all. gradually, congress has come to understand that the united states loses its own credibility as the leader of democracy around the world when it does not treat the nations,

the citizens of the nation's capital as full and equal citizens. congressional jurisdiction over the district of columbia appears in the constitution but in 1973, congress recognized that it was wrong. wrong. to rule the local jurisdiction from the congress. so it delegated what we call home rule, or the right to self-government, to the district of columbia. now that marked a historic realization that local residents have to govern themselves locally. that it was wrong that the nays' capital was the only -- that the nation's capital was the only place, this place, where congress meets with no local democracy, where the

citizens, hundreds of thousands, had no say on their own local affairs. i know it's hard to believe that could ever have occurred anywhere in the united states and local control is among the very first principles of the founding of our country. but only in 1973 did your nation's capital get an elected government, an elected mayor, an elected city council. a lot of that had to do with, to be fair, southern democrats, although the district, for 150 years, was a majority white district, the old-time southern democrats saw the large african-american population here as reason to keep the district from having any local self-government.

republicans weren't much a part of that and i hope they won't be part of that today. the promise to delegate the same kind of local control to the residents of the nation's capital as we presume, even without thinking, is the case for every other local jurisdiction that promise has been mostly kept. mayor gregg runs the city, the city council passes the laws, except when congress decides, or rather some members of congress, decide to break that promise of democracy and intervene into the affairs of a local jurisdiction for one reason and one reason only. that they simply disagree with the decisions that the local jurisdiction has made. imagine if in your own district, from this congress, i

disagreed with some of your decisions and i could then overturn those decisions, my colleagues, i am kg you not to do to -- i am asking you not to do to us what you would not have done to you we ask only that you apply the same standard of democracy here in the nation's capital that you insist on in your own district. you cannot be for one standard of democracy for the egyptian people who are now rising up to demand democracy without being for the same standard in your own nation's capital. you wouldn't intervene and tell the egyptian what is to do even when you disagreed with it. we ask you in the name of the founders and the name of american democracy, do not do

that to the residents of the district of columbia. it is impossible to justify a standard for democracy except when you disagree with the decisions that have been made. i respect that new members jab hor federal intervention, even in areas of legitimate federal concern. the new members, some of them tea party members, would like to withdraw federal intervention from areas long understood to be of some concern to the federal government, and their view is that even in these federal matters, there's too much federal government. what about federal intervention? where -- what about federal

intervention when there's no federal concern whatsoever? what about central intervention where there is no federal money whatsoever? but only billions of dollars raised by the local taxpayers. what about federal intervention where there is no federal law involved but only the law of the local jurisdiction? if you think there's too much federal government in what we do now, surely you will not tolerate any federal government in the local matters of a local jurisdiction and especially in your own nation's capital. we raise our own funds, $3 billion of it more than federal, state. we want them to spend them as we see fit, just as my colleagues in their

jurisdictions without any federal intervention spen their own local funds as they see fit. and yet, yesterday, there was a shameful, shameful experience here. there was a hearing on a federal bill, the federal bill had to do with restrictions on federal funding for abortions that some of us thought were airtight as it was. i happen to be for the right of a woman to choose. i have always respected my colleagues who have another point of view. that matter is being decided as it should be because it involves federal funding in

several committees of the congress. what in the world was the district of columbia doing in a bill having to do with federal funding for abortion? what was this language doing in that bill? and i am quoting. the term federal government, in quotes, the government of the district of columbia, does not, my colleagues, we are local government. we are not your colony. declaring that the district of columbia is part of the federal government for purposes of intervening into our local affairs to tell us how to spend our local money is an

unprecedented violation of the district's right to self-government. the district of columbia provision was entirely unrelated to the federal abortion funding purposes of the bill. if there is to be abortion funding in a local jurisdiction and there is today local funding throughout the united states using local money in local jurisdictions, if it can be done anywhere in the united states with local funds, how cowl anyoneoff -- how could anyone justify keeping the people of the district of columbia from using their own local funds in precisely the same way? why is it that my colleagues have come and taken control of the congress on the wings of a promise of jobs?

well, where's your jobs bill? that's what the people in my city want to know. some of them from poor wards which have 20 and 30% unemployment. why are we looking at the district of columbia, not for the jobs you said you would provide, but for how we spend our local funds on abortions for low-income women. what business is it of yours how we spend our local money? get out of our affairs. you've got enough to tend to here. why focus on one local jurisdiction? if you want to deal with federal funding of abortions, fight fair. deal with it here, man-to-man,

woman-to-woman. don't come and cross the line between democracy and autocracy and dictate because that's what you're trying to do, dictate to a local jurisdiction how it should spend its own local funds which you had nothing to do with raising. shame on the judiciary subcommittee because i canned for the right to testify simply to indicate why the district of columbia should be taken out of this bill, and i was denied the right to testify. i have been in this body for two decades. i recall no circumstance in which a member was denied the right to make a few remarks before the hearing and

certainly no circumstance of denial of a member to make remarks when her district and her district alone was in the bill. what are you afraid of? would not elementary fairness say, all right, congresswoman norton, we don't have a lot of time for you but you're in the bill so here's two minutes. i was entitled to that. in the name of fairness. but you and this congress have given disproportionate time to the district of columbia. that's not all you've done. there's been introduced a bill to impose private school vouchers on the district and the district alone. what's wrong with you? what are you afraid of. if you're for vouchers, put a national vouchers bill on the floor. i know why there's no national vouchers bill on the floor. because there have been referendums in three quarters

of the states on vouchers and every last referendum has been defeated because the people of the united states say over and over again that if you have one red cent you better spend it on our public schools. there's already been a compromise on this issue. the district of columbia was chosen out for vouchers even though we have the largest alternative public charter school system in the country. would that the members of this body on either side of the aisle had almost half of their children in alternative schools, public charter schools that residents themselves have come forward to establish as an alternative to their public schools, why pick on us? if vouchers are so good, i challenge you, put a bill on the floor, let those who want it come forward. you're afraid you don't have the guts, you pick on us because you can, it's wrong. .

a compromise was reached. the compromise allowed those who are now attending voucher schools to remain in those schools until they graduate. no compromise is enough for those who believe in a zero-sum game. district home rule, public school alternative is a model for the nation. charter schools enjoy the strongest bipartisan support in this congress. what's wrong with what we are doing? why aren't we being complimented and commended by having a charter school system where almost half our schools attend. in your district, you will find local school boards, your states keep charter schools from coming

forward. that's not happened here because in part, the last republican congress during the last republican congress under speaker gingrich when he came and discussed vouchers with me, i asked that we do a bill for charter schools and out of respect for home rule he did. where is respect for local home rule today? our charter schools have long waiting lists. we could use any money that the congress has to help these children find places in our own charter schools. this is the last district you want to impose vouchers on precisely because we have heard the call because when there are children who aren't being well educated at least in some of your public schools and i'm a strong supporter of public schools, but do concede there are some children who don't have access to the best education.

well, we have done something for them. don't punish is for it by imposing a voucher system on us that we do not want. last year, i asked to be placed in the omnibus bill $5 million for voucher parents to go to charter schools. when i met with them, they said they tried to get into our public charter schools and could not because of long waiting lists. that's where the demand is. that's where the need is. we want our choices to be respected. we respect there may be jurisdiction who would, in fact, wish vouchers, give them the opportunity. don't impose vouchers on people who have chosen another

alternative. i'm not sure why one local jurisdiction would command so much attention from a new majority to convince the american people that they would put jobs first. i'm not sure why. but i am sure of this. that if you want to direct your attention someplace else, there must be a lot of places you kgb sides the district of columbia. and i'm saying that i'm going to be on this floor often making sure that members understand who the district of columbia is, what it expects and how it

expects to be treated. now i see on the floor the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano. and i appreciate he's come down. because it's one thing for me to try to get ever all of these riders and our home rule riders, harmful riders off of our -- off of the district of columbia, but i could not do that by myself. i'm not a member of the appropriations committee but we have a member on that committee who saw to it that all of those riders, those riders which violated self-government in the district of columbia in the worst way was removed. so citizens of the district of columbia will be forever grateful for the work of

representative, then chairman, now ranking member on the district of columbia subcommittee and we will be grateful until he removed each and every one of those attachments. and i'm pleased to give some time to the gentleman. but how much do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has nine minutes. ms. norton: five minutes to the gentleman from from new york, mr. serrano. mr. serrano: i thank you for the time. and i congratulate you on continuing to be the representative that you are for the district of columbia. let me in the short time be brief and to the point. this may be one of the least

known issues in the united states, the whole issue of how congress treats the district of columbia. understood that there are constitutional provisions. but constitutional provisions for congress to oversee the district of columbia does not mean that you should mistreat the district of columbia. and i think it's important to note something that happened when i became chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the district of columbia and that is i took it very personal. you see, like so many new yorkers, i was not born in new york. i was born in puerto rico. and i was raised in new york and i represent the bronx in congress. puerto rico, as some may know, everyone should know, is a territory of the united states, some would say a colonny of the united states. so the one thing i didn't want to be chairman of this committee

and treat washington, d.c. the way the federal government sometimes has treated my birth place and where i found myself as so many other folks with the united states, this country you love and puerto rico as your loving birth place and knowing they are attached, but somehow puerto rico doesn't get treated equally. so i said publicly to the amazement of some and laughter of others that i was going to be the first member of congress to ever relength issue power. i didn't want more power but wanted to give up power, i wanted less and less to do with the district of columbia. let them govern themselves. and so, the first thing we did is we found out that we were not allowing the district of columbia to have a sensible approach to the hiv-aids issue

epidemic by not allowing a syringe exchange program. it's important to note here, there are monies raised locally by washington, d.c. and then you have federal dollars. and what happened was, congress for years was saying, you can't use federal dollars for certain programs and can't use local dollars for certain programs either. this is the part that gets a little political and i'm going to be as fair and balanced as possible, to quote somebody else. i believe that some members of congress, who did not wish to discuss these issues back home or could not fight these issues back home used the district of columbia as the experiment by which they could say, abortion, i'm against abortion. where? in the district of columbia. need -- needle exchange.

i'm against that? where? in the district of columbia. and couldn't go back home and accomplish these in their districts but imposed it on the district of columbia. my role and i did accomplish it but it may change soon, little by little, i got bipartisan support, both parties to remove under your leadership and i'm being honest about that because you pushed and you pushed and you pushed, under your leadership to remove these riders, to let them decide what to do with the hiv-aids crisis, have district of columbia to vote. that's all we did. we still kept the constitutional provisions. i don't go around rewriting the constitution. now what i think will happen and we begin to see is a desire to

once again use washington, d.c. as the experiment or the place where you do these things that you can't do back home. so i would say to my colleagues, if you're strong, and i respect you on the issue of school vouchers, if you're strong on the issue of not letting women make choices in their lives, if you are strong on the issues of what rights or lack of rights gays should have, if you are strong on all these issues, fight them at the national level, fight them back home, don't single out the district of columbia as an experimental ground which you can say you can accomplish these things when, in fact, you did not. the last one we had is one that the public would understand. the last one which got lost in this budget we just did is the one that simply said that they could approve their own local budget without having congress

say yes or no. now picture throughout this country. there are people watching us right now who have local school board budgets, who have local fire department budgets, local town, city and county budgets. they get their dollars from federal funds, local funds, state funds but don't come at the end of the budget process and say, members of congress from all over, can you please approve my budget? no. and i don't think they should be treated that way. and so i hope that the changes we made remain in place. but above all, i hope that we respect the citizens, the american citizens who live in the district of columbia, the residents who live here. and lastly, we were elected to be members of congress, but i was not elected to be the mayor of washington, d.c. and i was not elected to be a member of the washington, d.c.

city council. they have their own government. they can govern themselves well. they have their own finances. let's give them the respect they deserve. and i hope as time goes on, these victories that we had, not for us, not going to get me re-elected in my district but for the people of washington, d.c. that they stay in place. and again to my colleagues, if you want to make these points, make them back home or at the national level. don't pick on the residents of d.c. to make your point. and i thank you again. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman not only for his remarks today but for the extraordinary work you did. he was the real pusher. he was the man at the steering wheel and kept doing it until all the riders got off. and i want to thank the gentleman yes, from new york,

but who has not forgotten his roots in puerto rico because his roots have enabled him to empathize with people who may not have the kinds of democracy he holds up to be emblem attic of this country. you don't have to be one of us. it seems to feel what we are feeling. you have to think about your own roots, about what matters to you and about the -- particularly the issues that have driven you in your life. and i think you will come to the conclusion that you should not expect others from others what you would not have wanted for yourself. when you mentioned -- when the gentleman from new york mentioned puerto rico, he also reminds me -- time gone already? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

>> can i give the gentlelady five minutes of my time? ms. norton: he said five minutes of his time. i'm the half hour. we switched. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's 30 minutes has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognized the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege of being recognized to address you

here on the floor of the house. there's been some dramatic changes that have taken place in this country and dramatic changes have taken place in this congress. i believe that as we move forward, we're going to have some significant debates here on the floor. i look forward to the regular order component of this that's being initiated by speaker boehner. the process of using the committee process, the hearing process before committees, the markup before subcommittees, the markup before full committees and bills going up to the rules committee after they've been approved by the standing committees and those being the same bills that are passed by the standing committees that go to the rules committee and the rule committees can work their will and wherever possible provide for an open rule and members can have their will debated and require an up or down vote, recorded vote on their issues. that's not something that has been going on in this congress.

it's diminished each of the last four years. and the, more than -- the more than two centuries old, not necessarily a rule, not necessarily something written into the rule bus the practice and tradition of open rules and appropriations has been essential to allow members to have their voice. i'm thankful that's the new tone of this congress. it's been a great frustration to me and many other members, democrats and republicans alike. we're here today, mr. speaker, on the cusp of a great big decision for this congress. as we make this transition from the era of speaker pelosi to the era of speaker boehner, and as he lays out the parameters of let the house work its will, and let's go back to a regular order as it was devised and approved in the constitutional structure by our founding fathers work all of those parameters in mind, we have coming up before us a

continuing resolution. and the pressure points that we have, the opportunity to bring leverage, has been envisioned as the constitution sets up article 1, 2, and 3 of the constitution. here we are, taxes and propings need to start here in the house of representatives. and mr. speaker, i just make this point. it's an unequivocated point, that is that unless the house approves of federal appropriations, there shall be not a dime spent by the federal government otherwise. so whatever we do here, and we will bring a budget through and it will be a far more fiscally responsible budget than the nonbudgets processed in previous congresses and the extension by c.r. not by the legitimate appropriations process, but there will be a budget and that budget will cut current spending significantly. probably won't be enough to satisfy me but the budget

process is another essential component of what we're doing hoar. another component is to be table legitimately fund the balance of this fiscal year. if we do nothing if this congress doesn't act if the house of representatives doesn't act, mr. speaker, then the federal government will go into an immediate and automatic shutdown at midnight on the night of march 4 of this year. that was the provision written into the continuing resolution last december when democrats and republicans got together in compromise. the sthath was going to pass that huge omnibus bill, all the wish list of the departing senators and those that hadn't been up for lech, the big spending bill that was just grotesque in its vision when you look through all the dollars they were going to spend in the senate and send it over here. thankfully, the american people rose up, jammed the switch boards in the senate and even those hanging on the fence decided to get ahole of their better, responsible nature and

decided to pull down that huge omnibus spending bill an we ended up with a small continuing resolution. a continuing resolution that funded the government from the -- i don't remember the exact date of the expiration of the last one, but in december whenever we passed this, through january and february and into the fourth of march. some of us anticipated they wull try to pass a c.r. for the end of the fiscal year. that didn't happen. a lot of us would have liked to have spent less money up to this point but in that c.r., there isn't any funding that support os because macare. even though obamacare has passed and is the law of the land, there's no money in the c.r. we're operating the government on today. if that -- if the funding called for had been in the c.r., there would have been about a billion dollars appropriated in the bill that passed last december and expires march 4. that money was not put into the bill because they needed the

votes of then the seated republicans and democrats to vote for the continuing resolution. the old congress, the 11th congress didn't vote to willfully fund the implementation of obamacare. now we're faced with, they have the prospect of a continuing resolution coming before this congress that's been announced to be five times greater than any appropriations bill ever voted on by this congress before and perhaps four times greater than any cuts that have been offered before. that's because the whole string of 13 or so appropriations bills get packed up into one and all that spending that is normally spread out across 13 and perhaps a supplemental or two packaged into one bill, with all that money in it, that's why it's that big. i think it's unlikely there will be a line item anywhere in it that will fund obamacare but i don't see resistance either from someone bringing an

antidepressant that would declare that none of the funds in the c. reform shall be used to implement or enforce obamacare. that's pretty close to the language i have advocated for ever since last march. when i first introduced the repeal legislation to obamacare and by the way, michele bachmann and i were within three minute os of each other in exactly the same language to initiate the repeal. we worked together with others, connie moran, jer -- -- jerry moran, connie mack and others. there are a lot of supporters across the board. mr. speaker, i want to lay out the strategy that i have planned here on the repeal of obamacare in sequence so that people that think chronologically like myself can put this into the right context that is this. i spent about half a year of my life fighting the passage of obamacare.

when it finally passed, the night it passed here, i went out off the balcony and down into the lawn on the south lawn where there were thousands of people pleading, keep your hands off my health care. and i said to them that night that we would start the repeal process the next day. i went home exhausted thinking i would sleep until i was rested up and that didn't last very long. i got up and wrote the request for the repeal. as did the congresswoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. we submitted those repeal requests at the opening of business that same day because it was after midnight when obamacare passed. it was at that time the strategy that i put together then was that we would file a repeal bill, seek the max numb number of co-sponsors to repeal opaw macare and then, mr. speaker, move toward with the discharge petition to seek to get 218 signatures on that so

then-speaker pelosi couldn't block the repeal from coming to the floor. we did all of that and peaked -- to the point where we peaked out at 17 signature on the discharge petition that could have circumvented the speaker seeking to block repeal of obamacare. that was one of the tools useful in winning the majority on november 2 of this past year. there are members here who openly say they wouldn't be here if they didn't have the discharge petition to point to their opponent and say, sign the discharge. if you're against obamacare, here's the vehicle to repeal it, sign it. a numb of those who did not and would not were rote voted out of office. we have a new freshman class here that is 96 strong, 87 of them are republicans and i know of none of the 87 that did not run on the repeal of obamacare. i don't have confirmation, mr. speaker, but i believe that every one of the freshmen

republicans, the 87, ran at least in part, if not centrally on working to repeal obamacare. the next phase after winning the majority so we could bring legislation to repeal obamacare, the next phase was to bring a repeal bill here to the floor of the house. and i wanted it to be h.r. 1, it turned out to be h.r. 2. i don't know what h.r. 1 is yet, but i'm very, very happy that the leadership took that high a priority to hold a vote here on the house to repeal obamacare so early in the first seg of the 112th congress. we saw a vote that was bipartisan and it was unanimous among republicans to repeal obamacare. that is a very sound, a ringing, sound, rejeck of obamacare by the american people as a result of the election on november 2, by the people they sent here, 87 new freshmen republicans, many of them very, very solid, and then after h. reform 2 passed the

house, with unanimous republican support and bipartisan support, mr. speaker, it went other to the senate where they said, well, it could never pass over here and it's simply, it's a symbolic vote. well, the republican leader, mitch mcconnel did force a vote and -- forced a vote on the repeal of obamacare and it would have taken 60 votes to break the filibuster urn those rules. every republican in the united states senate voted to repeal obamacare. we're in the situation today, mr. speaker, where if you look in the house and in the senate, with far larger republican numbers than we've had in past years, every republican in the house an senate voted to repeal opaw macare, every single one. and they're serious. and they want to get the job done. and their constituents insist that we get the job done as well. and so now that we have taken this position that we are all of us for repealing obamacare,

consistent with 2/3 of the american people, if we voted to repeal it, it would be completely inconsistent for us to vote then to fund obamacare. if the c.r. has language in it that allows for funding of obamacare, then a vote in support of the continuing resolution is a vote that funds the very thing that we voted to repeal. which would be inconsistent. i do not believe that we will have inconsistent members here in the house of representatives. i think they voted to repeal obamacare. i think they're happy to vote to cut off funding to obamacare and i believe that we'll have a universal support for that among our conference. and i believe the senate if they have an opportunity for the vote would co-the same thing. down party lines, perhaps, but they'd do the same thing. herein is the difficulty, mr. speaker. it's this. that the funding that might otherwise be in this continuing resolution or may perhaps actually come out tomorrow in it is not very large in

comparison to the overall cost. the chairman of the budget committee has said that the spending under obamacare is $2.6 trillion. $2.6 trillion. there's taxes enacted by it and we know how the c.b.o. scored the information they were given but $2.6 trillion in spending would be shut off if we shut off, if we fail to repeal obamacare today. and we have voted to do so in the house, the senate wasn't successful, the president likely would veto, it is his signature bill, it's his identity, he's the one who called it obamacare at the blair house, now it's in our dictionary my spell check spells it out for me, obamacare. but in any case, the $1 billion or so that might be cut out of obamacare in the c.r. if we say up in of the funds that are written into this bill can be used to implement or enforce obamacare that $1 billion" pailles by comparison to the --

that $1 billion peals by comparison to the -- peals by careton to the bill itself. that's unusual when you have a large authorization bill come through, generally it authorizes the appropriations. they're authorized to be appropriated under this section, x many $s, to go to implement or enforce the vears provisions of obamacare. that's where the money is. and the real money that's up in that, that's automatically appropriated, opaw macare anticipates and authorizes trillions of dollars to be prorpted to fund it and it authorize -- to appropriated to fun it and authorizes the collection of billions of dollar of fees and taxes to fund it other time. but the automatic appropriations that are unusual, written into obamacare that a lot of people didn't know was in there when it was voted on, they will automatly appropriate a number that approaches or exceeds $100 billion in automatic

appropriations. we're crunching these numbers now and i have to qualify these numbers, mr. speaker. our low numbers down around $65.3 billion, our upper number is up around $107 billion. c.r.s. doesn't have a number, c.b.o. doesn't have a number, apparently nobody has pressed them to produce numbers of the automatic appropriations in obamacare in all this time. so we're taking this apart and putting it back together, that's why the range is it's my map, -- shop, doing the math on this range, $167 billion on the high side, call it $100 billion for round figures. we can come here on the floor next week and debate a c.r. and we could see an amendment come that's in order that would cut off all funding in the c.r. to be -- that would be used to fund obamacare. if we do that, we're cutting off about $1.2 billion in spending. . if we bring in an amendment and

if we are successful, we shut off maybe $100 billion that would be used to implement and enforce obamacare. $1 billion versus $100 billion. and if we don't use the 100% solution, then $100 billion, as many as or perhaps more, will be aggressively used by the obama administration to implement and enforce obamacare. and if they do that, the canner oice tomb air that is growing sends its roots down deeper and gets bigger, stronger and harder to eradicate. that's part of the strategy. so, mr. speaker, i am hopeful that leadership and chairman of the committees will get together and sometime when they put the finishing touches on the c.r., that they will write into the bill the language that i have proposed and since we deal with

2,500-paged bills in the house and even though we may not understand, i have an amendment here that i could read every word here and could be understood by everyone in the america. this is the amendment that shuts off the automatic appropriations to obamacare. and it is this. notwithstanding -- first, i should say, and i quote, notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available in this act or any previous or subsequent act may be used to carry out the provisions of public law 111-148, public law 111-152, or any amendment made by either such public law. closed quote. that's the amendment, mr. speaker, that shuts off not just the funding in the c.r. to owe baum aa care but the self---

obamacare but the self-enacting legislation written into the obamacare bill and the reconciliation package that came from the senate as part of their deal. that's why i gave you two bill numbers instead of one but they are referred to as obamacare. that's the amendment that needs to be made in order on the floor that allows the house to work its will and allows the house to work within order under the rules and if it's not written into the bill -- and by the way, regular order is holding committee meetings, holding hearings, subcommittee markups and subcommittee appropriations. the chairman would be seated at one of those markups, i would think. that would be useful. full appropriations committee markup and there would be an opportunity to introduce this legislation in committee and succeed, i believe, in dealing with a parliamentary challenge

or written into the base bill, there wouldn't be a parliamentary challenge. and if it goes out of the appropriations committee and up to the rules committee and doesn't have my language in it, at that point the rules committee can protect this language, mr. speaker, from a point of order. but if i bring this language to the floor under an appropriations bill, i know i'm facing a challenge, a parliamentary challenge to this language and it will be hard for the house to work its will if we get to the point where we have a parliamentary challenge on a piece of language that mirrors the will of the american people, mirrors the wishes of the american people and the members of congress, majority members of congress and mirrors the will and wishes and the votes of 100% of republicans in the united states house and united states senate and it's bipartisan at least in the house. that's the endeavor we need to

be successful with, mr. speaker. and i'm very determined to have this kind of debate and find a way to have this vote. to be blocked from a vote that is essential to work the will of the house, how then can we say that the house has worked its will if the house has been denied an opportunity to work its will? and i know there are arguments on both sides, mr. speaker. but i would point out that the language that i have read into the record is not a precedent. it doesn't stretch the rules or the history or the traditions of this house. doesn't stretch any written rule that i know of. and it's this. there is a.m. will precedent, a.m. will precedent in the form of the funding of the appropriations bills that were used to shut off funding for the vietnam war. i disagreed with the decision back then. and i remember reading about it

in the news in 1973, 1974 and my recollection is 1975, but i don't happen to have those notes, but i do have the notes to draw from a report by c.r.s. out of the congressional record. i'm saying that we can bring an amendment that shuts off all funding notwithstanding any other section, all of the maut automatic funding that was brought biobauma care can happen in an resolution and we can put an end to obamacare then until we elect a president who will sign the repeal and hopefully the first act of office in january of 2013. that's my hope, wish and work. for those whom wonder if this language stretches the parameters, it does not. here are two examples of the house of representatives

concurring -- and the senate concurring and here is one of the supplemental appropriations bill, not a c.r., that is in 1973 and actually the date on it is august 15 of 1973 and says this. that none of the funds appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities over cambodia, laos, north vietnam and south vietnam. no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be extended for such purpose. so, mr. speaker, this supplemental appropriations bill that's dated -- enactment of august 15, 1973 and signed by the president says that none of these funds and no funds in the pipeline can be used to support combat directly -- support

directly or indirectly combat activities in vietnam. if there are were bullets on the way to be unloaded on the dock, they put the brakes on them and went back. those funds were on the way. they shut them down. doesn't mean they stopped everything. none of those funds that were unobligated, were allowed to be use by this act of congress in a supplemental appropriations bill. yes, the precedent can do this. yes, it is a common practice. those who think this is a rare exception, i would go down the line to another piece of legislation which actually was a c.r., a continuing resolution. and this is dated 1974, july 1 of 1974 and this language in the continuing resolution says this. quote, notwithstanding any other provision of law on or after august 15, 1973 no funds

heretofore appropriated may be obligated or expended to finance directly or indirectly combat military forces in or over the shores of north vietnam, south viet in a, laos and cambodia. no funds heretofore appropriated may be obligated or expended directly or indirectly. that's an all encompassing language that we have used as a template to shut off the funding that is automatically appropriated in obamacare and i think inappropriately appropriated in obamacare. for those who thing that is old piece of history and something that hasn't been used in the modern era and therefore isn't a model or a precedent, we go back 200-plus years for those years i

don't have problems with the constitution, but just in the 110th congress, first two years of nancy pelosi's congress, mr. speaker, she forced 44 votes, might have been some in the rules committee, most of them came to the floor, 44 votes by this united states congress that were designed to unfund, underfund or undermine our troops. and i have those all on record on a spreadsheet with hyperlinks to the language and we fought that off through the 110th congress because the effort was to end the war in iraq by shutting off the funding in iraq and forcing our troops to come back home. i'm thankful that george bush prevailed in the surge and we have the optimistic situation in iraq because of the decision made by george bush. but not with any help by nancy pelosi who forced 44 votes, many

of them and i have not scored them, but probably most of them follow down the same lines as the legislative procedure that i'm advocating here. and so, mr. speaker, this is a very sound practice. it's a very constitutional practice. it's tried and it's true and been effective and it put an end to the vietnam war and we can put an end to obamacare if we bring language either as written into the bill or if we go back and have an appropriations committee meeting which i don't expect will happen or if the rules committee protects my language so the amendment can be legitimately debated here on the floor of the house and have a recorded vote. we can shut off 100% of the implementation. if we don't take those steps, congress will not have been allowed to work its will and we have the chance to shut off $1 billion, which amounts to 1% of the overall appropriations that

are automatically enacted biobauma care. we can come with a 1% solution and posture ourselves as we provided a solution or we can come with 100% solution with the best tools that the house has now, do the best job, write the toughest bill, that we can send it over to the senate, because we know this, it is going to get worse in the senate and lempling back on it. if it was just me, we could hold our ground. but it isn't just me. my colleagues that i enjoy serving with and this is this, we can't have people blimping in this congress not when the destiny of america is at stake. and if you are wondering about blinking, sign up with me and wait until i blimping and when i do, i guarantee my eyeballs will be dry but we must hold our ground and not blink and send

the language over to the senate and i am plement, used aggressively by the obama administration to send the roots down and grow this malignant tumor and we can pull it all by the roots and do so if we move my amendment and make it in order under the rule or write it into the bill. if not, the american people look back on this time and say, where were you when it was time to stand up for the will of the american people. mr. speaker, i had my say and i appreciate addressing you here this afternoon here on the floor of the house of representatives. i ask my colleagues to join with me and let's repeal obamacare and pull it out by the roots lock, stock and barrel. 100% repeal, not 1% repeal and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy

of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, for 30 minutes. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. over the past several weeks, i had the increditble privilege and honor to be traveling across my district, from the plains of worthing ton to the mississippi valley in winona and holding grocery stops and hearing what the american people are talking about. they aren't talking about obamacare but a lot about jobs and moving the country forward. and this is a place i have to tell you. it was 18 below zero when i left. these are hardy folks and used to weathering tough times and gave root to the mayo clinic and also a place that is one of the top leading producers of food in this nation for feeding the world and we generate the fourth