gentleman from -- the gentlelady from california is recognizesed for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i congratulate him on his tremendous leadership as the ranking member on the appropriations committee and when he was speaking today i was thinking back to when i was a relatively new member of congress, not even here two years, we had an earthquake in the san francisco bay area. of course, it was a complete surprise, a terrible, natural disaster. very hard -- bridge -- the bay bridge was out of commission. it cracked the -- the homes were on fire for days and days and days. a true natural disaster. and when i came to the floor when this issue was brought up by the chairman of the appropriations committee, the honorable jamie witten of mississippi, he came to the floor and with his words of

comfort and assurance to the people who accepted the natural disaster, his comments made all the difference in the world. listening to him no one had any doubt that the federal government was going to honor its commitment, honor its commitment to the american people that when in time of natural disaster we will be there. we have a compact with the american people. how different the conversation is today when we're talking about saying during a time of natural disaster, and by the way, many more than the natural disaster than san francisco -- the san francisco bay area, loma priellta, would stretch across california, but today

we've had hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, forest fires still raging out of control in some parts of the country. texas until recently in that situation. i hope that it's under control now. or the rain we all pray for there is coming. and what do we do? we come to the floor and say, now we're going to institute a new policy that says in time of natural disaster we're going to have to find someplace to play for it. now, what's next? where are we going next to pay for it? the distinguished chairman has said, well, we paid for emergencies before and indeed we have. i'm talking about something of a much different caliber. i'm talking about a natural disaster. i'm talking about the fema disaster relief fund. with all of the -- all of the

disasters that are happening at once, we don't know when the next one will come, but what is frightening also is we don't know where this majority wants to go to pay for it. i have serious objection to the pay-for in this legislation. i have a bigger objection that we would have to pay for a disaster. we never paid for the tax cuts for the rich. they never were paid for. we never paid for the wars in afghanistan or iraq. they were never paid for, but all of a sudden we have to pay to try to make whole these people who had been affected, who've lost everything. i visited there. i wish you would. maybe you have. maybe you have. but it's not that joplin, missouri, is finished. it's not that as we go to a new disaster, we're fipished with the old one. it is just compounded. someone mentioned earlier in

the election, people talked about the -- the american people want, whether it's in an election or out of an election, they want jobs. and exactly what this bill does is cut jobs. instead of creating jobs, the number one priority of the american people, this republican bill will cost good-paying jobs. it's amazing because the bill, as we're debating, will cost at least 10 good-paying jobs under the manufacturing -- american manufacturing jobs. make it in america. and perhaps 10's of thousands more by cutting the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing loan program. i'm not going to speak too much about it because our colleagues already have. they've talked about how this takes us to the next place in innovation and competitiveness for our country. the next place in technology for cars that had reduce emissions which will help us stop some of these natural

disasters. these laws have proven to be effective. they've already created 42,000 jobs, putting america to work in cleaner and -- making cleaner, more efficient american cars. we shouldn't have to choose between creating jobs and caring for those struggling in the aftermath of the disasters like hurricane irene and the earthquake that preceded it and the floods that continue. one of the speakers, the gentleman whom i respect, said this is a political move. well, if there's anything that is not political in our country it is a natural disaster. you want to talk politics, when somebody is suffering a natural disaster, they just -- there is no place for that. at some place we walk on a ground that is more hollow, more hallowed than the normal

terrain in which we debate and that terrain is the terrain of the disaster that has affected the american people. if you looked in their eyes, you would feel so helpless that you cannot make them whole. you may not be able to have them have the personal effects of their families. seen it so many times. and will they economically be made whole? will their homes be restored in a way that makes it the home it was before that they loved, that created a sense of community, one home after another? so we are in a very, very sad place for all of these people. we don't know who is next. and what makes me suspicious about what the majority has put into this is i want you to know

this. we haven't paid for natural disaster assistance before. we're used this advanced technology vehicle manufacturing. they're taking $1 billion of it to pay for the disaster. and there is half a billion it dollars left. and they're rescinding it in this bill. they're eliminating it. so this isn't about paying for the disaster. this is about destroying an initiative that is job creating, that is innovative, that keeps america number one, that creates good-paying jobs in our country. it's really hard to understand what the motivation is for that. but one thing is clear. they are using the disaster to eliminate that initiative and that's just not right. but even if they had the best offset in the world, i still think it is wrong for them to

go down a path that says this time for your disaster we're using this technology program. what's next? when we may with all of the disasters that we have, where do we have the room to say, well, on those days at that specific time this is how we'll pay for it. let's instead do something that gives hope to people that creates an economic boom in these places that had been affected and not a discouragement that they are being treated differently than anybody else had in a time of natural disaster. i heard the distinguished chairman use the term emergency. it's a different story. it's a different story. it is with great sadness that we tried to meet the needs of these people at a difficult time. it's a great sadness that we have to have a debate about it. that we even have to have a

debate about it. i urge my republican colleagues to withdraw this bill, come back clean, let us vote together to address the natural disaster that has afflicted our country, recognizing that we don't know what's around the corner. and as one of our colleagues said, we said we were going to pay for everything. we don't know what god has in store for us for the next disaster. we hope and pray that whatever it is, i mean, to meet the needs of our people in a way that has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with america. with that i urge my colleagues to vote against this reluctantly because i would love for us to join together but not in its present form and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. rogers: madam speaker, this is a simple bill. this is a simple continuation of spending until november 18. i would not want it on my record that i voted against helping the postal workers keep their routes until november 18. we take care of that problem in this bill. i wouldn't want to vote no on that if i could help it. i wouldn't want to vote no to refuse to continue the government and all that the government does. i wouldn't want it on my record that i voted against helping people who have flooded the subject of wildfires, earthquakes and all other sorts of calamities. a vote no on this bill says no

help for those people. now, the gentlelady who just preceded me, the former speaker of the house, says that the we -- that we should not use offsets to pay for at least a portion of these disaster funds . in fact, while the gentlelady was speaker of this house, we did just that. we voted to offset the funding for hurricane katrina in 2006 and 2007. we voted for offsets for disaster relief in 2008, 2009 and lastly in 2010 we voted to offset $10 billion for what was called the pelosi edu-jobs stimulus bill. the gentlelady voted for that offset. and so i urge you to to vote for this bill.

we will have plenty of time during the negotiations with the senate during the next six weeks to take into account the additional bills we're going to get for flooding and other disaster relief and we will take care of the problem between now and then. vote yes on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 405, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. rogers: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: someone has asked for the yeas and nays? the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the motion will be followed by a five-minute vote

on the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2883. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 195. the nays are 230. the motion is not adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2883, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar

number 138, h.r. 2883, a bill to amend part b of title 4 of the social security act to extend the child and family services program through fiscal year 2016 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain one-minutes. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. >> mr. rothman: israel is essential to america's national security. the jewish state of israel guards the mediterranean, the sue ezz canal and helps us with the oil and other activities in the persian gulf near iran. our relationship is dependent and so extremely important to both countries' vital national security. but what is happening to -- this week at the u.n. the palestinians are going to the u.n. to avoid negotiating a

peace agreement with israel. the palestinians want the u.n. to do what think won't do, negotiate a peace agreement. but it is made up of hamas and fattah and it is a terrorist group. hamas' charter says they will never exercise israel's right to exercise. fattah is coming to u.n. through president abbas even though the president said negotiate peace with israel. why would the palestinians do that to the united states' vital national security interests and america's best friend in the region, the jewish state of israel, because they are refusing to make an geement to live in peace with the jewish state. we will withdraw aid from the palestinian people and people will suffer. and must withdraw from the u.n. and go to the u.n.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. >> it has been more than nine months since the december 19 beautyal crackdown on the opposition in belarus. human rights of the citizens continue to be denied. nine political exist -- prisoners exist. they remain in prison and the president is using them to bargain for economic assistance with the international community. and leader of the united civic party describes the conditions in the k.g.b. pre-trial detention facility as being cruel and inhumane and the opposition as being brutal. for the first time in 17 years, people of belarus are asking for

democratic change. it is now time to invest in democracy in belarus. the existing window for the opposition might be temporary. people in belarus need our support and we need to be with them until the end of this existing brutal regime. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. engel: address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the united nations, leaders from around the world are coming in. the major issue is the palestinians are claiming they are going to the united nationses to have declared a state of their own. i have news for the palestinian leadership. the only way they can have a state of their own is sit down in face to face negotiations with israel and hammer an agreement, a two-state solution, israeli jewish state and palestinian arab state.

the palestinians cannot try to impose any kind of solution that doesn't work. if two adversaries want to hash out a disagreement to come to an agreement, they need face-to-face negotiations. this has happened in the past and the israelis have accepted it and the palestinians have said nofment the united nations should not discredit itself more and be the kangaroo court against israel. i'm glad that the united states is standing up and saying we will veto a resolution if it comes before the scruret council. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: address the house for one minute. what happens at the united nations this week will have an effect on the lasting -- profound and lasting effect on the prospects of peace in the middle east. if they succeed in obtaining

recognition, it will delay efforts to a negotiated settlement. israel has cooperated in good faith with the palestinian and international efforts to mediate peace and work toward a two-state solution and has made many concessions, some of which were not in israel's best interests. the palestinians unsatisfied with these efforts at the negotiating table are seeking an end run around israel to gain statehood. watching this unfold i was reminded of the late 1980's where the u.n. germ assembly had ash temporarily designated one of the political parties the sole representative of in a mib bya people. and it led to the independence. the same designation was awarded several decades ago to the p.l.o. and had a similar effect. the u.s. government should use

all the tools at its disposal to ensure that that same outcome is avoided here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: i rise today to commend each american that celebrated constitution day which was last saturday, september 17. over the past few decades many americans disgust at their government and the freedoms we claim to protect. the powers of congress are laid out in article 1, which is the most expansive article of the constitution for a reason. our founding fathers propounded powers to the people. during this congress, the house has taken significant steps to restate its constitutional authority and given an attempt to return to a constitutional

government. one example is the train act on the floor this week to rein the gross regulatory overreach. this process has been about more than just our need for fiscal reform. it's about the timeless principles of freedom, justice and opportunity that has provided america with 224 years of prosperity. and the future promise of our nation if we continue to hold these principles dear. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. this morning i had the honor and privilege to spend two hours with 86 world war ii veterans from mississippi. these exceptional men and women inspired generations of americans such as me to serve their country. sadly, though, when i returned to my office after honoring

these american heroes i saw many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle congratulating themselves on the ill-conceived lame-brain, lame duck session repeal of dontedonte. despite the questionable reports, surveys and certifications which i believe were flawed from the beginning, i have no doubt that we have take an wrong turn. palestine palestine the 111th -- mr. palazzo: the 111th congress obviously failed the american people son many levels. repeal of dadt is just another glaring example of their failures. social experiments like this repeal have no place in our military and i for one apologized to those who have served and those who are currently serving. god help us all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, several -- >> mr. lungren: madam speaker, several years action my wife and i were privileged to be in the state of israel at the time the

israeli government made a very difficult decision to turn over the gaza to the palestinian authority. it was a very controversial decision, the question was, would this gesture of goodwill be reciprocated by the other side? and unfortunately of course it was not. and as in other gestures by the israeli government, the response has been give us more and we will not commit to the existence of israel but you have to commit to the existence of a palestinian state. let there be no mistake, it is a bipartisan support on the floor of the house for the state of israel at this time of great need for them when they face all sorts of problems in the united nations and he will where -- and elsewhere. let us be clear, we will not be divided on this, republicans, democrats, conservatives and liberals here in the house of representatives.

and the united states senate. support israel in their effort to remain free and to not be forced into positions that are totally unfair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for ms. sutton of ohio for today after 2:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. deutch: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. and i appreciate the opportunity to be here following those

series of speeches delivered that lead perfectly into the discussion that we're here to have. this is a crucial moment for the state of israel, for the united states, for the relationship that binds us together and this is an important moment for those who believe in democracy and for those who believe in peace. we will all be watching what transpires at the united nations in the coming days as the palestinians continue to move forward with an ill-fated attempt to create a state that can only be created by negotiations. i appreciate the opportunity to engage in a discussion with some of my colleagues and i would like to start by recognizing my neighbor and my friend, the gentlelady from florida, congresswoman wasserman chicago bulls. was was thank you so much. mr. deutch, thank you so much for putting together this

important special -- ms. wasserman schultz: thank you so much. mr. deutch, thank you so much for putting together this important special order. i rise today in praise of president obama's enduring unequivocal support for our ally israel and a vision for a peaceful world. this morning at the united nations president obama shared with an international audience his commitment to israel's security in the midst of a challenging region and complex times. the administration approached this year's u.n. general assembly standing strong with our ally in many respects. from once again boycotting the antisem ethic activities surrounding the durban conference, to pledging to veto any palestinian unilateral declaration of independence in the security council, to working all summer with our partners and allies against the unending efforts to criticize and delegitimize israel at the u.n. president obama has been a stalwart ally of israel in this international forum. i'm so pleased that he continued in that vein this morning with his address to the general

assembly. in his historic speech to this global audience, president obama once again demonstrated his stalwart support for our friend and ally, israel. importantly president obama used this opportunity at the united nations to unambiguously state his support for direct bilateral negotiations as the only way to solve the israeli-palestinian conflict and create a palestinian state. as the president said, a genuine peace can only be realized between the israelis and the palestinians themselves. there is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades, peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the united nations, it is the israelis and the palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them, on borders and on security, on refugees and jerusalem. president obama made it resoundingly clear that unilateral action will never create a state and that we must continue to support a process between two peoples that recognize both security concerns and national aspirations.

and that clarity has not gone unnoticed. prime minister netanyahu speaking after the president's speech today said that our president is wearing a badge of honor for his commitment to direct bilateral negotiations as the only way to a palestinian state. as he has done so many times in the past, president obama again put forth our country's unshakable commitment to israel's safety and security as essential tenants to peace. the president reaffirmed our enduring friendship to our ally israel, noting the very real security concerns of being surrounded by hostile neighbors. he made clear to the world that he understands the very real threat israelis face in constant rockets and suicide bombs and children coming of age knowing that throughout the region other children are taught to hate them. only when israel feels its security concerns are met will future generations of israelis and palestinians live side by side in pride and in peace. with the international community

assembled, president obama stressed the difficult but vital efforts we must all make in our quest for peace. not only for israelis and palestinians, but also across the middle east and all around the world. he spoke of the accomplishments of revolutions that have brought burgeoning democracies to the middle east and north africa over the past year and the frustrated aspirations of many in the region where democracy is yet to come. in praising the new free libya and urging the international community to join us in sanctioning iran and syria, the president affirmed his commitment to supporting those who wish to cast off tyranny and in a world free from the terror of osama bin laden president obama emphasized our continued quest to end the religious gender and sexual persecution that prevent all people from achieving their true potential. i am so proud of president obama's unwavering support for israel and his overall vision for peace that he laid out at the united nations this morning. hopefully hearing the strong message from the united states, the palestinians will once again

return to the negotiating table with israel and work out a just and lasting solution between the two parties. in the meantime we can stand tall with the exemplary efforts by this prow israel president as we -- pro-israel president. thank you, mr. deutch, and i yield back to you. thank you very much for your unwavering support for our ally. mr. deutch: thank you very much and the same to you. i would note the president also spoke today at some length about the need to recognize israel's security interests, the fact that israel is a country that is surrounded by enemies, that has faced rockets, rocket attacks, barrages, at times on a regular basis, that it is imperative that all of our allies around the world who understand the security threats that israel faces, that they understand that it is in israel's interest to take the action necessary to defend herself even as they move toward the negotiations with the

palestinians. that's something that every a nation would understand -- every nation would understand. i appreciate you bringing up that today. thank you very much. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you very much. mr. deutch: it is my pleasure and honor to yield time to the former impressive and wonderful chair and now the impressive and wonderful ranking member of the foreign operations committee, of the house appropriations committee, representative lowey from westchester. mrs. lowey: and i want to thank my good friend, mr. deutch, for your impressable, strong supporter of the israel-united states alliance for organizing this conversation at this very, very critical time and i thank you, thank you very much. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the palestinian authority's counterproductive

and dangerous gam by the to declare statehood unilaterally through the united nations. as we all know, a genuine and lasting peace between the israelis and palestinians can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement between the parties themselves. a lasting peace cannot be imposed on israel and the palestinians by an outside country like the united states or organizations like the united nations. that is why it is so disturbing that the palestinian authority had chosen to discontinue direct negotiations with israel and instead pursue a unilateral declaration of statehood through the united nations. this action will indisputeably set back the prospects of a settlement between the parties and call into question the commitment of palestinian leaders to genuine and lasting

peace. the palestinian authority receives more than $500 million in economic and security assistance from the united states each year because it is in our interest and that of israel to support the ability of the p.a. to provide security and basic services. but that assistance is predicated on the willingness of the palestinian authority to negotiate directly with israel toward its own state. president abbas has been warned repeatedly and i remain firm that this counterproductive action by the p.a. crosses a line and should lead to a re-evaluation of this assistance. despite the provocative decision of the palestinian authority to abandon negotiations and to pursue instead a unilateral declaration of statehood, i remain optimistic that the administration working in

concert with the quartet can facilitate the condition for a resumption of good faith negotiations and i commend president obama and secretary clinton for standing firm in support of a negotiated settlement and for reaffirming the unbreakable bond between israel and the united states. i support the administration's tireless work to prevent a unilateral declaration of statehood from coming to a vote before the united nations and to defeat this gambit if a vote does occur. as president obama stated today before the united nations, peace is hard, but we also know that it is very much worth the effort. i encourage president obama -- president abbas to make the hard choice to return to negotiations with israel. it is the only way to achieve the lasting and genuine peace that both israelis and palestinians seek.

i yield back and i thank you again. mr. deutch: i thank you, congresswoman lowey. there are few in this body who understand as well as you the importance of weighing the decisions to allocate united nations foreign aid and where that money goes. and you have been such a vocal and passionate supporter of aid to israel, to give israel the ability to defend herself and you i think spoke eloquently about the questions that will be raised if the p.a. continues to move forward on this gambit of the yuths united nations, calling -- of the united nations, calling into question their negotiation and ultimately raising the reevaluation of aid to the palestinians. mrs. lowey: i thank you and i know how hard the administration is working, every minute of the day has been spent trying to ward off what we think will be a

real disaster. so as an optimist i'm hoping, i'm hoping that before these speakers get up from, whether it is -- i think it's on friday, i hope he is wise and thinks through that decision an gets back to the negotiating table. thank you very much. . mr. deutch: it is my honor to yield such time as may be needed to a colleague and friend who has often been described as the great pro-israel member of the united states house of representatives, representative from nevada, ms. berkley. ms. berkley: i thank you for putting this special order together to discuss an issue that is very important and is certainly front and center on the international scene today as

it has been for the last several weeks and i thank you, mr. deutch, for your extraordinary steadfast support for the state of israel and the strong relationship that we work on and attempt to foster every day. mr. speaker, i rise to support our closest friend and ally, the state of israel. and to support the peace process between israel and the palestinians. we must oppose the misguided and dangerous effort to bypass negotiations with israel and go to the u.n. with a resolution in order to create a palestinian state. the ramifications of that are extraordinary. they could destabilize the entire middle east, put israel on the defensive at the international criminal court and create a failed terrorist state right next door to the state of israel controlled by the

iranians, i might add. the palestinians have claimed that they are going to the u.n. because they have no partner to negotiate with. but it is the palestinians, not the israelis, who refuse to negotiate. they demand and they demanded time and again that israel cease all settlement growth in the west bank before they would be willing to sit down and negotiate with peace -- for peace and a palestinian state with the israelis. but i think it's time that we talk and remember the exact history and it's not such anc inch ent history. in the summer of 2009, if we could remember back to time to the netanyahu government at great political risk agreed to freeze all settlement growth for months. did the palestinians sit down at the negotiating table with the israelis? there were 10 months of a moratorium, enough time to negotiate a peace agreement that

would bring a lasting peace to the palestinian people and jewish state of israel. did he do that? no, he did not. he waited over nine months to begin negotiating with israel and only sat down at the table with weeks' left on the israeli moratorium. then what did they do? . the palestinians demanded that the israelis extend the moratorium and did nothing and then wanted to expand the moratorium. this is not the behavior of a true negotiating partner. what type of negotiating partner invites hamas, a terrorist organization, to join them and become part of the palestinian authority? certainly not a peace partner that wishes to bring peace and a palestinian state to the middle east. the israelis, by contrast, have shown their commitment to negotiations and have repeatedly called on the palestinians to join them, join them at the negotiating table. when netanyahu addressed the united states congress in a joint session on may 24, he

reiterated his willingness to make painful compromises in order to reach peace with the palestinians. but the palestinians have turned their backs on the negotiation or any form of compromise and have gone to the anti-israel body, united nations, where they believe they will receive more sympathy and ultimately success. i appreciate the obama administration's strong statements that they will veto any palestinian statehood effort at the security council, but i'm deeply concerned that the palestinians will receive overwhelming approval at the general assembly. today, the palestinian authority has tentatively agreed to merely introduce their resolution for a unilateral declaration of statehood in the security council and then ask that no action be taken until they negotiate with the israelis. this concerns me greatly. what type of way is this to

negotiate? put a gun to their head and every time the palestinians don't like it, the palestinians can threaten that they are going back to the united nations? i don't think this is a true interest insighting down and negotiating for a palestinian state. let me tell you, as i conclude, what i think we can do and we should do it immediately. congress must act. we must send a clear signal to the palestinians that we will not continue to support them with our foreign aid dollars if they choose to act unilaterally and avoid negotiations. i will not continue to throw taxpayer money away to the palestinians when they are refusing to negotiate in good faith for a palestinian state. i have introduced h.r. 1592, which would cut off funding to the palestinian authority if they unilaterally declare a state outside of negotiations. i hope my colleagues will join me in co-sponsoring this timely

legislation. we must send a clear message to the palestinians that their efforts to circumvent negotiations are unacceptable and the only way to statehood is at the negotiating table. and mr. deutch, i thank you so much for allowing me to share my thoughts with you at this most delegate time in world peace. mr. deutch: thank you very much represent, shes representative berkley. if there is going to be peace, you are absolutely right. that is peace that will come through negotiations. and i'm not sure what type of negotiating tactic it is to, on the one hand, said there is a commitment to negotiate, but at the same time, to run to the united nations, to unilaterally declare a state in a way that only seeks to delegitimatize your so-called peace partner. israel is committed to peace. we have seen that time and time again from what mr. netanyahu has said, ready to negotiate.

time that they move forward with negotiations. i appreciate your insight and your commentary. i would tell you as you spoke about hamas, the p.a. made a decision also to move into a partnership with that terrorist organization, a terrorist organization that holds an israeli soldier captive and refuses the world to see him and meet with him. he should be released. this was a message that was given to the p.a. directly in a meeting that i was privileged to have participated in on a bipartisan trip to israel some months back. i was pleased to be on that trip with our friend, representative cardoza. and i'm pleased to yield to him as much time as he desires. coozecooze i would like to --

mr. cardoza: ms. berkley is a stalwart of the state of israel and is correct on this issue and i will gladly co-sponsor your bill. mr. deutch, thank you for putting together this special order this evening. as you all know, the palestinian authority has stated that it will submit or intending to submit to the u.n. secretary general a resolution requesting recognition of palestinian statehood. as president obama said today in his speech before the u.n. general assembly, the bonds between the united states and israel are unbreakable, as our commitment is to the security of israel. and as and my colleagues in congress expressed earlier this year when there was resolution

268, the only path to a lasting peace is through direct negotiations between israel and the palestinians that leads to a two-state solution. lasting peace will not come by playing destabilizing and damaging political games at the united nations. a unilateral approach to palestinian statehood will surely fail at the united nations. it will fail and in failing, it will harm the bilateral negotiation process that is the only way to bring about a lasting peace. a lasting peace cannot be achieved while our contingent within the palestinian government does not recognize israel's right to exist. a lasting peace cannot be achieved while rockets are being fired into israel, threatening her children and her people. i was there with mr. deutch just days after an anti-tank rocket was shot into a yellow school

bus. i ask every american watching tonight and those around the world to think what they would do if the state of mexico fired on a school bus in el paso and the response that we as a country would pursue. a lasting peace cannot be achieved while the same group firing those rockets into israel is actively trying to define israel's borders so those rockets would then strike major populated areas. finally, mr. speaker, a lasting peace cannot be achieved when one party fundamentally refuses to negotiate the terms of peace. i call upon president abbas to do what is right for both the palestinian people, the israeli people and the world and to not put political games mapship ahead of lasting peace. i call on him to return to the negotiating table and give up

this dangerous and damaging game. mr. deutch: i thank my friend, mr. cardoza, and there are a lot of opportunities that we as members have to participate in the process and to see the impact of the decisions that we make, the opportunity that we had to spend some time in the community that had just been attacked with that rocket fire, reminds us of what we are doing here this evening and what president obama did earlier at the united nations today and what our allies will do in standing up to support the one great democratic nation in the middle east, why that is sote important. mr. cardoza: absolutely correct. and those visions of those scared mothers talking to us in their community by a bus stop, a shelter that has to be

reinforced by concrete so they can protect their children going to school is the reason why we must act for a lasting peace. thank you for organizing tonight's special order. mr. deutch: it is my pleasure and honor to yield as much time he may choose to utilize, my good friend, representative, representative joe crowellly. -- crowley. mr. crowley: i rise today to speak about one of the most important issues in our world and that is peace in the middle east. for far too many years, many parts of the united nations have been hijacked by states opposed to the ongoing existence of the state of israel. some states simply refuse or not willing to acknowledge that israel is a country surrounded by many who seek her

destruction. they seem to believe that if the israelis simply conceded, simply gave up, that peace would come to the region. that view doesn't only show a lack of understanding, it is simply wrong. the truth is no country in the world would ever take action that undermines its ability to define itself and neither should the state of israel. the people of israel face the threat of terrorism. from the moment they wake up in the morning to when they go to sleep at night. israeli citizens wonder if they and their families will be the target of attacks. dozens of suicide bombings and attacks have been carried out over the past 10 years and there is no doubt that each and every day, hamas is planning and preparing for even more attacks. madam speaker, we need peace in the middle east. but these are not the conditions for peace. how can anyone make peace when

enemies are seeking their destruction. and now we see this move at the united nations to secure unilateral declaration of statehood, instead of achieving the peace that is so desperately needed, so desperately wanted, this looks like a step to back israel into acorn. let me assure you, this is not the path to positive change. it is a grave error by the palestinians to demand recognition of statehood at this time. the fact is the day after any vote, the situation on the ground in the middle east will not have changed. all the same issues will remain in place. the difference will be the trust, trust will forever be eroded and for good reason. that's not the only difference, however. there is another issue i believe we need to have more discussion about.

i believe that what the palestinian authority is doing calls into question our funding for their work. the united states supported the authority as a way to support peace efforts, but this statehood drive undermines those very efforts. american dollars are meant to support efforts by the palestinian authority to secure peace and diminish violence, but this is not a blank check. . we cannot support those who seek confrontation instead of reconciliation. i believe it is time for a very, very serious review peace.

the president emphasized the importance not just of peace but of human dignity and economic opportunity. in particular, president obama again demonstrated that he is a true and steadfast friend of israel and reiterated that quote, america's commitment to israel's security is unshakeable and our friendship with israel is deep and enduring, unquote. i'm a strong supporter of a two-state solution. i look forward to a future in which a palestinian state exists in peace alongside the jewish state of israel. but as the president emphasized a genuine, true and lasting peace can only be reached

through negotiations between the israelis and the palestinians themselves. i strongly support the president's diplomatic leadership and efforts to convince the palestinians and their international allies to abandon efforts to use the u.n. the bypass negotiations with israel and i join him in urging them to return to talks with the israelis. while we acknowledge that the conflict will not be resolved easily and will require difficult sacrifices, it is only through direct peace negotiations between the israelis and palestinians themselves that a lasting solution can be found. there can be no substitute. as the president stated today in new york, quote, peace will not come through from statements and resolutions at the united nations, unquote. in a speech today, the president recognized the legitimate desires of the palestinian people for a state with

recognized borders and opportunities for economic growth. i share his commitment toward working toward that goal. but as he also emphasized, any peace agreement, what must acknowledge and address the ongoing security threats faced daily by israel and the israeli people and be based on a recognition that israel is a historic homeland of the jewish people. instead of appealing to the u.n., the parties simply need to return to the table. a lasting peace cannot and will not be imposed by any external party. it must be reached by the israelis and the palestinians themselves with regional and international support, including that of the united states of america. the palestinians should abandon this effort at the united nations. our allies should stand with the state of israel and real peace

negotiations. that means the palestinians have return to the bargaining table. i thank you, mr. speaker and i thank you, mr. deutch. mr. deutch: equally important is what the administration has been doing leading up to that speech today in a way that the u.n. ambassador has continued to press our allies in a way that this administration has been clear throughout that if this movement goes forward, if the palestinians correspondent to go to the security council, that the united states will veto that resolution because it is not a way to achieve peace. i appreciate your sharing those thoughts with us. it is a great privilege for me now to turn over the floor and

yield as much time as my friend will consume and perhaps we could have a bit of an exchange to one of the greatest defenders of the state of israel, one of the most outspoken members of this body when it comes to standing up for the safety and security for the state of israel and someone who has remained engaged in this issue, even traveling to new york before coming back to washington to speak directly to those who will be making decisions, a good friend and great colleague, representative engel. mr. engel: before i talk about these issues, let me fist compliment the gentleman from florida. he hasn't been in congress very long but he certainly made his mark very strongly and particularly on the u.s.-israel relationship.

he has been a stalwart supporter and a very, very articulate spokesperson for the u.s.-israel relationship. and i know that mr. deutch has been very, very effective and it's an honor to do this special order with him this evening. i agree, madam speaker, with everything that every one of my colleagues said. and let me first say, because, you know, we are democrats, having this special order, there's been a lot of fighting in congress, but on one thing we don't fight about, democrats and republicans, we agree that the u.s.-israel relationship must remain strong and if there's one thing that unites this congress and unites democrats and republicans, it's strong support for the u.s.-israel relationship. many of my colleagues have made very, very good points. many of which i want to reiterate. the most important thing to reiterate is this. if there is a dispute anywhere

around the world, the only way you can resolve that dispute is getting the two adversaries face to face in direct negotiations, to hammer out all the issues of disagreement and hopefully come to a peace agreement. that happened in ireland, in northern ireland, a place that we never thought would get peace, but did, because both sides made the commitment that they preferred peace over war and over misery, that had gone on for far too long. so they sat down face to face with a little prodding from different countries, including the united states, and were able to hash out an agreement. that i'm convinced is the way that the middle east difficulties will come to fruition, only by face to face negotiations. the palestinians in my estimation have attempted to throw so many preconditions at

ream -- israel before they will even sit down and negotiate that it's made it impossible for israel to be able to sit down and talk with them. boundaries like 1967 boundaries or settlements or expansion of neighborhoods, all these are final status issues. these are not issues where one side says to the other side, you have to unilaterally agree with our position before we'll even sit down and negotiate with you. that makes no sense whatsoever. so face to face negotiations are the only way that we can have peace. i would argue that going to the united nations by the palestinians actually sets back the cause of peace. because if the united nations were to declare a palestinian state, say on the basis of the 1967 lines which is what the palestinians want, well, that is a gearpt that there can never be peace -- guarantee that there can never be peace with an

agreement like that. first of all, if the united nations were to agree to that no palestinian leader in the future could ever accept anything less and the israelis can never accept and will never accept a return to the 1967 borders which were indefensible. israel fought wars because those 1967 borders were not defensible. and so these preconditions and this going to the united nations actually sets back the cause of peace. now, i just think a little bit of history is important because it's so easy to go on college campusers or try to delegitimize israel in the united nations or have a statement that aren't really true. the fact of the matter is that israel had always been prepared to make painful concessions for peace. i was in this congress during 2000, 2001, when president clinton helped negotiate what we thought was a peace, the oslo

owe cards -- accords. i remember in 1993 on the white house lawn with yasser arafat and are a bin shaking hands. i remember being there -- are a binny shaking hands. -- shaking hands. we all had such high hopes. but what's happened? it used to be said that the palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity and there have been many opportunities for peace. in 2000-twoun israel agreed to a peace. arafat, who was the palestinian leader, said no. and what did arafat turn down at that time? he turned down a palestinian state, part of jerusalem, 97% of the west bank, billions and billions of dollars of aid. israel said yes, he said no. i think it's important to put that in perspective. and then the palestinians talk about the right of return. they want to flood israel with palestinian refugees, not refugees that left in 1948 when israel was founded, but their

descendents. and that's a pipe dream. because that could never happen. it would undermine the essence of the jewish state of israel. so if there is going to be peace in the middle east, we need to go back to what the partition of palestine in 1948, the original resolution, said in the u.n. it said, palestine is to be partitioned into an arab state and a jewish state. and here we are some 63 years later and the palestinians and most of the arab world won't even recognize israel as a jewish state. that's where the problem lies. not with israel. and the attempt to go to the united nations and sort of do an end game around israel will not work. and finally, and then i'd be happy to discuss this further with my colleague from florida, mr. deutch, let me just say this, and we've heard some rumblings about it with some of our colleagues here. this congress will not continue

to fund the palestinian authority, it's not going to be a blank check, if the palestinian authority doesn't want peace and doesn't show that it wants peace, we are not going to continue to fund them. i introduced a resolution in the foreign affairs committee which came for the state department markup which passed unanimously on a roll call vote, with holding money, ending money, to the palestinian authority if they come to the united nations for a vote. passed unanimously, every democrat, every republican. and so this congress is not going to be a fool. if the palestinians want peace or they don't, but they cannot have it both ways. they cannot say they want peace and refuse to sit down and talk to israel face to face at a negotiating table. so, mr. deutch, i want to thank you for doing this. i think it's very, very important that all people of goodwill, democrats and republicans, stand together in

support of israel. i think the president's speech today at the united nations was a very good speech where he talked about the bond sun breakable between the united states -- where the bond is unbreakable between the united states and israel and we have to make sure that the palestinians live up to their commitment. israel is living up to its commitment. israel wants to live in peace. we're now waiting to see what the palestinians and the arab states want to do. and finally let me say this. there are two fankses in the palestinians -- factions in the palestinians. one is fattah, which is what bass' faction, and hamas. hamas is a terrorist group. hamas doesn't recognize israel's right to exist. hamas certainly doesn't recognize the right of a jewish state to exist. how can we expect our ally israel to sit and negotiate and make peace with an entity that denies its very right to exist and an entity whose whole reason for being is to destroy the jewish state? we wouldn't ask that of ourselves, we shouldn't ask that

of israel. and i yield back to mr. deutch and i'd be happy to do a colloquy with anything he might like. . mr. deutch: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. deutch: if the palestinians were serious about peace, they would abandon their unity with hamas and abandon this plan at the united nations and return to the negotiating table but doesn't seem to be the case as we discussed here tonight. they seem intent on making a mock erie and delegitimatize israel. but we will stand up to that effort. we'll stand up against it. and the fact is from the racism

resolution in the 1970's and goldstone report, the united states has stood up against such delegitimatize efforts loudly voicing our opposition and claiming we won't tolerate some malicious ack cue situation sayingses and will -- accusations and will stand up for israel in new york. tomorrow, when ahmadinejad brings his campaign of hatred to the united nations general assembly and stands miles from ground zero, three weeks after the anniversary of the september 11 attacks and declares that the u.s. government orchestrated the attacks to reverse the declining american economy as he did last year, we will stand up for those brave men and women who lost their lives that day and every

day since then and when he celebrates the 10th anniversary of the durbin hate fest, a rant against israel, we will stand up for the freedom of democracy that israel represents, freedom of democracy that ahmadinejad represses in his own country. that's going to be our role just tomorrow. and i know you will look forward to standing in strong opposition to those statements from one who wishes to see israel wiped off the map, one who could be tried to incitement to genocide. we will stand in opposition to the hateful rhetoric we will be forced to listen to tomorrow. mr. engel: i said before that the u.n. has been a kangaroo court against israel time and time again and israel cannot get a fair shake in the united

nations. and i do hope that we are able to block the votes in the security council where the united states is -- the obama administration has said that the president will do a veto of any kind of resolution, and i hope it won't come to that because i hope they do not get the votes to even pass it. and then the palestinians might then go to the general assembly or they say they are going to do that. and while the general assembly cannot admit a palestinian state, it can upgrade their status which would allow them to run around and that rass israeli leaders in the different international courts. the u.n. better be careful. it sits in my hometown of new york and we have been proud that the u.n. is in new york. but i think the u.n. is on the basis of discrediting itself very, very badly. you know, there was resolution

242 which talked about land for peace in the middle east. i would say that the palestinians by trying to get recognition unilaterally in the u.n., they are repudiating the land for peace. they are respeed yating the oslo accord where both states have to sit down, israelis and palestinians have to hammer out an agreement and repudiates the basis of the original partition of palestine into a jewish state and an arab state. we talk about the palestinian refugees. they have been used as pawns as the palestinian leadership and the arab states in the world and we ought to mention this because it is important. jewish refugees from north africa, from europe, from all over the world came to israel and were integrated into israeli society through the years. the palestinian refugees could have and should have been integrated in the various arab

countries, but the arab leaders decided to leave them in these horrendous conditions in these camps and use them as pawns in the palestinian camps. it wasn't done by the israelis, but done by the palestinians themselves and by the arab nations themselves to use them as political pawns. i think we should look at the people who are really suffering here and say why they are suffering. they are suffering because they had a leadership that has failed them for more than 60 years. i'm proud of the united states of america. i'm proud for my country standing up for freedom and standing with israel and i'm proud that the president said the bond is unbreakable. we have to understand that this is not a fight between two groups that are sort of equal and being concerned about democracy. israel shares our values. israel is the only democracy in the middle east. israel, what's important to

israel is important to the united states. and that's why we have to stand with israel, because if we don't do it, nobody else will. we have shown time and time and time again that the international community, particularly the united nations is biased against israel and unless the united states stands squarely with israel, israel will never get a fair shake. i'm proud we are doing that now at the united nations. i'm proud that we have taken a stand. i'm proud of this congress on a bipartisan basis for taking a pro-israel stand. and the unions, and i would say this to the people of israel, will always stapped with our friends and allies, israel, who care for the basic human rights and concerns and democracy and democratic values that we care about as well. as we see this as unfolding, i would say to the palestinians, if you really want a two-state solution, which i believe you are entitled, then sit down with israel face to face, across the

negotiating table, no pre-conditions and talk peace. the israelis are willing to do it and we are waiting for the palestinians. thank you, mr. deutch. mr. deutch: thank you for your passionate words. and i think it's important as we wrap this up, to think about why it is and to remind -- to remind our colleagues and the american people why it is that we are so committed to this bond with israel. and we do it because the bond with israel runs deeper than our interest in middle east affairs, runs deeper than mutual security interests. a bond is borne out of the values that our two nations share, the values of freedom, of respect, of human rights. we, as americans, share those values with the people of israel. they are universal values,

american values. they stand religious and political parties. they bring people together from all walks of life. they are the things that some of israel's neighbors are losing their lives fighting for. the values that israel holds dear as a great democracy in the middle east and in the world. so israel faces one of its greatest challenges. a worldwide campaign to unilaterally declare a palestinian state. the united states must continue to remind the world why it is that we stand in bonds with israel. i urge our allies around the world to stand with us now in urging the palestinians to abandon this misguided and dangerous quest. if mr. abbas seeks a state where palestinian people can truly prosper, a peaceful state, then

he will look to israel as a partner. he will understand why negotiations provide the only path to peace and he will take his seat at the negotiating table. to our whip, steny hoyer who helped us arrange this hour and to my colleagues who participated and to everyone who has tuned in for a moment, i want to say thank you, thank you for giving us the opportunity to stand up at this most difficult and crucial moment in the history of the u.s.-israel relationship and remind our allies from around the world and every nation from around the world just how strong and unbreakable the bond between our two nations is. madam speaker, i appreciate it. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gingrey: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank our majority leader for giving me the opportunity to take this time this evening to talk about two of the most important issues on the minds of every american, but especially on the minds of our seniors. and those two issuesr number one, medicare -- two issuesr number one, medicare and patient care and affordable care act. if you go to the 11th congressional district of georgia, madam speaker and say, what do you think about patient protection and affordable care

act that was passed on march 23, 2010, year and a half ago in this body, they would say i don't know what you are talking about. and then if you said to the folks in the 11th of georgia, well, obamacare, oh, yes, of course, now i know what you are talking about. tonight i will use the term obama car, not in a perjorative way, but a term that is recognizable to the american people. and even today, a year and a half after passage of obamacare, fully 60% of people across this country are opposed to it. they were opposed to it at its inception and yet when president obama was inaugurated and became

our 44th president, just within weeks, there was this push to have something that i would call national health insurance, government-controlled health insurance for this great country of ours. and so many times, madam speaker, the dial owing -- dialogue is well, we have been wanting this government national health insurance, medicare for all, government insurance from cradle to grave for years, way back probably in the days of teddy roosevelt. we have been wanting this and trying to get this passed, and now is our opportunity. now, finally, we have the opportunity to bring this to the american people. well, who was it, madam speaker, that wanted it all these years

and why, if they wanted it so badly for 50, 60, 70 years, why was it never passed? indeed, why was it not passed the last time before this passage in march of 2010? why did it fail back in 1993-1994 during the administration of president clinton when we referred to it as hillarycare. everybody remembers that very well. well, it's because the american people, the american people don't want this, didn't want it then. didn't want it in 1993-1994. absolutely didn't want it in march of 2010 and yet, this president and that majority at the time, the democrats

controlled this house of representatives, they controlled the senate, they had the white house, all their ducks were in a row, everything was aligned and they literally spent a year and a half, madam speaker, a year and a half, forcing that legislation literally down the throats of the american people even when folks have of all ages, but especially seniors, were saying, you know, we don't really want this. . part of that reason, especially in regard to our seniors, moism, is the -- madam speaker, is the fact that they were worried and still are worried about their medicare program, medicare of course was an amendment to the social security act that was passed back in 1965. i had just completed my freshman

year of medical school and i remember it very well and medicare, of course, is a great program for our seniors, i would hate to think what our situations would be, those over 65 and those with disabilities, if it were not for the medicare program. but, madam speaker, the medicare program is far from secure. i'm sad to say that tonight. but it's the truth and i think the american people and again especially our seniors who are currently on medicare or those that are getting close to age 65 , that, you know, i think they know that our attention in this congress and from this administration should be on preserving, strengthening the

medicare program for our seniors and not spending a year and a half from january, 2009, literally, until march of 2010 with almost nothing on the agenda but instituting, passing this new entitlement program called patient protection affordable care act or indeed obamacare that really has nothing to do with seniors. has very little to do with those who are poor in this country, through no fault of their own, and thank goodness again created a 1965, their health care system called medicaid. so, no, what we've done with obamacare, madam speaker, and my colleagues, is just simply create a whole new entitlement

program. i will make a little analogy and say that if in the middle of a thunderstorm you have a leaking roof on your house, you don't go out and add another room or a deck on the back of the house, you get up on that roof and you stop the leaking. it's a matter of priorities, madam speaker. it's a situation that -- it's beyond my comprehension that the democratic majority and president obama would spend all that time and effort trying to add a new room, put a deck on the back of a house when the roof was badly leaking and the analogy is, of course, that roof is a medicare program. there's to so many things that we need to do and we need to

have the courage to do and i'm proud, i am very proud of my party, the current majority in this house of representatives, when we passed our budget for fiscal year 2012. sometimes referred to as the ryan budget, paul ryan, madam speaker, as you know, our colleague that is a chairman of the budget committee. but it is a republican budget. and it has the courage of conviction, the commitment to our senior citizens to say to them, we are going to fix the medicare program and we're going to guarantee that it will be there for your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren. and that the benefit program that you currently have, and

indeed even people who are not yet eligible for medicare, but they're 55 years old, 10 years away, we would enact no changes whatsoever to their medicare benefits, medicare as you know it will be preserved and protected for those 47 million people who are currently on the medicare program, maybe seven million of those are younger individuals who are permanently disabled, 47 million people currently on medicare and when you add those who today, men and women in this country, who are 55 years of age or older, but not yet 65, in 10 years, madam speaker, that will be another 20 million to 25 million people on

the medicare program with absolutely no changes. and so you're talking about 65 million or 70 million people 10 years from now who will be on medicare, traditional medicare, as we know it, for the rest of their natural lives. i hope every one of them, including myself, live to be 93 years old like my mom is today. and enjoying the benefits and the security of medicare. but again we diverted our attention away from a program that our seniors can't live without but that's in danger of becoming insolvent. that's not congressman phil gingrey, dr. gingrey, the chairman of the g.o.p. house doctor's caucus speaking,

although i do represent, madam speaker, that group here tonight , as a designee more the republican majority in this hour of time that is allotted to me, no, this is the trustees of medicare and the congressional budget office and the actuary of the c.m.s., committee of medicare and medicaid services, who every year they look at the sustainability of the program and what they have told us, members of congress on both sides of the aisle, in both bodies, we know very clearly that the best case scenario if we do nothing is that medicare will be insolvent, we're talking now about the hospital trust fund. it will be insolvent by the year

2024. maybe it's worse than that. maybe by the year 2020. and for us to ignore that and just, you know, the expression, madam speaker, the whistling past the graveyard, pretending something doesn't exist that is as obvious as the nose on your face, kicking the can down the road, thinking, well, gee, you know, all i really care about is getting re-elected and let somebody else deal with the problems, unconscionable, unconscionable on our part. and, you know, to suggest that this new program to cover those in the country, i don't know how many, 20 million people maybe that are not poor enough for the medicaid program and not old enough or disabled enough for the medicare program, let's create yet another entitlement

program. you know, if money grew on trees that might not be a bad -- a bad philosophy. but it doesn't. it doesn't. if it did we wouldn't be in debt $14.9 trillion, soon to be $15.5 trillion. we just can't do everything and we have to set our priorities and focus on what is the right thing, what is the most important thing and i say to my colleagues tonight, madam speaker, during this time that that most important thing is to strengthen, to preserve, to save our medicare program for our current seniors and for our children and our grandchildren. you know, there's so many things

in obamacare, this new program, this new entitlement program to make sure that everybody has health insurance, whether they really want to or not. there are so many things in this bill which doesn't really fully go into effect until 2014, but yet the taxes that are burdened -- burdening our citizens are already being applied, whether it's an addition to the payroll tax, taxing for the first time income that's not earned, income that's interest, income that's dividends, income that's rental income, if mom and pop happen to rent out a room in their basement, and they have income

over a certain amount where the president says they're rich, it's just -- it's just, again, as i use this word a few minutes ago, it's just unconscionable. and when obamacare was created, one of the largest pay-fors in that program, madam speaker, was cuts to medicare, something like $550 billion taken out of the medicare program, not to strengthen medicare, not to pay for catastrophic coverage for our seniors, not to strengthen the prescription drug plan part d, not to close the doughnut hole, no. that money was taken out of the program to pay for this new entitlement that we know, most

of us know as obamacare, or the patient protection and in my opinion they should have called it the unaffordable care act. that's what's hurting this country very badly right now. and there are many things in obamacare that a lot of folks are not really aware of. they don't fully appreciate what is there because as speaker pelosi said, you're not going to know until you read it. she suggested that once you read it, you might like it. that certainly has not turned out to be the truth. well, madam speaker, i want to take an opportunity maybe to go through a few slides and we'll get this easel turned a little bit so i can see it. but here are some of the promises, here are some of the promises that were made as the

obamacare law was developed. obamacare will reduce the deficit. senator tom harkin of iowa says of the affordable care act, and i quote, this historic legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years. the next bullet point, colleagues, i know you can't see the small writing so i'll read it to you, obamacare will create jobs and improve the united states economy. the white house claims that obamacare, and this is also a quote from tim geithner, the treasury secretary, helps businesses and the overall economy by eliminating hidden cost that currently contribute to higher health care premiums

charged to businesses and the government. tim geithner, secretary of the treasury, said that in a white house blog on january the 19 of this year. another quote from the president himself. the patient protection and affordable care act, quote, will save a typical family up to $2,500 on premiums yearly. president obama said that of course back in 2009. he also said if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. during the health reform debate, president obama promised americans that there is nothing in the new law that would force americans to change plans or their doctor. colleagues, you remember that? sure you do. of course you do. and then the last bullet point

on this slide, madam speaker, obamacare will not ration health care. now, this is in reference to the provision that was added in the senate, creating something called the acronym, ipab, independent payment advisory board, kind of like mid pack is an advisory board under current medicare. but this creates this new board and secretary sebelius said this, on june 23, a couple of months ago, madam speaker -- madam secretary said, ipab is expressly prohibited from making decisions that ration care, raise premium, reduce benefits or change eligibility for medicare. that's a quote from sec retear of health and human services

kathleen sebelius. here, madam speaker, are the realities. those are the promises, here are the realities. colleagues, please pay attention to this next poster because this is so important. obamacare will not, and i repeat, obamacare will not reduce the deficit. according to a report by the house budget committee, there will be a $700 billion increase in deficit in the first 10 queers of obamacare. the second bullet point, obamacare will not create jobs, nor will it improve our economy. according to testimony by the director of the congressional budget office, the american labor force will be reduced by

800,000 jobs due to obamacare provisions that, quote, will effectively increase marginal tax rates which will also discourage work, end quote, and that was testimony of doug elmendorf, director of the congressional budget office. he was put in that position by speaker pelosi. that was at a house budget committee hearing in february of this year. some six months after the passage of obamacare. the third bullet, obama care will not lower health care costs for families by $2,500 a year. the president was wrong about that due to obama care, families buying insurance on their own can expect a $2,100 increase in premium, that's from a letter from c.b.o. to senator evan bayh, former

senator evan bayh, of indianaering that was in thove of 2009, some five months after passage of obamacare. i'm sorry, that was actually six months before. this is when the bill was being developed an a -- and debated in the senate. if you like your health plan you cannot keep your health plan. according to the united states census pew roe, the 2010 census shows that employer-provided insurance fell by 1.5 million to 55.3% from 56.1% in 2009. and it is continuing to fall and it would not surprise me if within the next six to eight years, madam speaker, that 100 million workers in this country will lose their employer-provided health insurance because the mandates of obamacare make it impossible

to meet this requirement. it's not just a matter of being forced to provide health care for their employees, it is the type of health insurance coverage dictated by the federal government. that's why my colleagues, 60% of this country remains totally opposed to this. finally, on this slide, on this poster, obama care will ration health care. don berwick is the new director of the medicare and medicaid service, c.m.s. he had to be appointed by the president during a recess because he could not pass advise and consent and approval by the united states senate. they didn't have the votes. they didn't have all the democratic votes, i feel quite

confident, so the president used a little trick of the trade and put him in this position daurg congressional recess. this is the gentleman that was quoted and wrote about and talked about other national health insurance programs, in regard to rationing, here's what the director of medicare said, and i quote. the decision is not whether or not we will ration care. the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. don berwick, in biotechnology health care, june of 2009. you know, madam speaker, as we

talk about these two programs, medicare on the one hand, obamacare on the other, i just think it's so important for us to understand what kind of costs we're talking about. this new entitlement program, it's not paid for. they tried to say it was paid for. and raise $1 trillion by slashing and burning medicare of $550 billion and raising taxes for the other $500 billion, and said in the final analysis, this is paid for, and it saves money. madam speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. this program is not paid for. and it does not save money. and it probably is costing we

the taxpayer $2.7 trillion. how can we afford to do that, to add that new room, build that new deck, when our obligations that we have made to our seniors, and our obligations that we have made, our promises, our commitment, to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed, they have little income or maybe no income, and that hand up, of course, is the medicaid program. it is just patently unconscionable for we as members of this great congress to ignore that and as our super

committee now is debating what needs to be cut in our overall spending of $3.7 trillion every year and 30% of that is borrowed, that's how you get to a debt of $15 trillion, you borrow $1 trillion here, $1 trillion there, for three or four years in a row, and you create an entitlement program that costs another $2.7 trillion, you can get to $15 trillion worth of tet pretty quickly. i would say to this bipartisan commission that has been set up to recommend additional cuts so that the president can have his requests granted to increase the debt ceiling, another $1.5

trillion so that he gets through the next election and this issue doesn't have to be addressed again, as this bipartisan, bicameral commission of 12 members debates where to find the offsetting cuts of $1.5 trillion, madam speaker, i would say, hey, men and women, you're all very bright. you were selected by your respective parties and your respective leadership because of the respect all of the members have for you and your work and experience in regard to dealing with these things, you've got the chairman of the ways and means committee, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, one of the more senior members of the financial services committee, the -- and i'm referring to the

republicans on the committee, you have the ranking member of the budget committee, on the democratic side, you have one of the highest leadership members from south carolina, you have good democratic, good republicans in this body and in the other body. well, i know they're struggling. i know they're struggling. i know the president just went to them and sent them a document, a 29-page document asking for, you know, another $2 trillion worth of cuts. hey, repeel obamacare. and you get -- repeal obamacare and you get $2.7 trillion of reduction in the debt. it is so simple. and it's what the american people want. it's what the american people want.

majority leader reid, pass the house-passed budget for fiscal year 2012. i know the senate hasn't passed a budget in 900 days, i understand that. but you know, just don't keep down that path. it's like trying to tax your way out of debt. the president seems to think that, you know, that's the way to create jobs. you know. just tax the so-called rich that actually are people that have an ad justed gross income of $200,000 a year. these are the job creators, these are the small business men and women who pay their taxes as individuals, madam speaker, you know that. colleagues you know that. you know that this is a lot

about politics, it's a lot about the next election. but we -- we just need to take a deep breath and think about what the people back home are telling us. think about the struggles they are going through. those 15 million without jobs. and 45% of them without a job for more than six months. and when you add the underemployed, the people who have just given up, you're probably talking about not 14 million or 15 million, probably 25 million people. and i see it, i see it, colleagues, in town hall meetings. i know you do to. both republicans an democrats. people ask questions, they shake their finger at you, and they're just not going to take some little smoke and mirrors answer to these tough

questions. they're fed up with that. i don't blame them. that's why our approval rating is so poor in the congress. we as individuals like to think that, well, you know, they love me in my district. you better hope so. but maybe not. maybe not. maybe every one of us are at risk of joining the ranks of the unemployed. and if we don't do the right thing, madam speaker, we deserve it. we deserve to be fired. and i stand here tonight, and not in a -- hopefully not in a partisan way. i think my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle would agree that my rhetoric is not over the top. maybe occasionally. but try to be honest with each other and to work together and to get things done and to realize when you've crammed a

law like the patient protection and affordable care act, down the throats of the american people when 60% or more say they don't want it, your first priority should be to create jobs. and your second priority, and your third priority. to create jobs. and put america back to work. and not spend a year and a half trying to pass something that just because democrats for 75 years have wanted this program of government control over health care, i think it was so wrong headed, even worse than the previous year when we spent the -- spent the whole year trying to please al gore and pass this scheme of cap and tax

, or cap and trade, in regard to carbon dioxide and in the process would literally have cost every family in this country $1,500 a year in increased utility bills, that's what the democratic majority did when they took over in january of 2007 for a year and a half, i can remember distinctly, madam speaker, i was on the science committee, in the very first hearing we had, we had one witness. that was the new speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. promoting cap and trade. or cap and tax. and the next hearing we had, we

had one witness. that was al gore, former vice president. again, pushing for something that was a job killer. maybe not a job killer for him, maybe not a job killer for certain sectors, special interests in this country, but for john q. public, joe the plumber, an absolute killer to jobs. and it's done nothing but increase unemployment, despite spending $850 billion on a stimulus bill that if it created any jobs they were government jobs and then, in the default position, the democratic majority says, but, oh, well you know, if it hadn't been for this bill that we pass all this spending, a lot of jobs would have been lost.

well, that's easy to say, but how do you count that? how do you verify that? trust but verify. so, you know, again, madam speaker, i'm not going to take all of the designated hour this evening but i am proud to have the opportunity, to have had the opportunity tonight to talk about these issues. yes, on behalf of the g.o.p. house doctors caucus, madam speaker, as a member. health care providers, nurses, doctors, dentists, psychologists, people that have been there, that have walked the walk in regard to what's best for our country and best for our citizens and, yes, best for our patients, not just seniors.

i talked a lot about medicare tonight and this obamacare, but we need to let the marketplace work, we don't want, mr. president, we don't want, we didn't want, we never will want a u.k.-type system. we don't want national health insurance. we don't want bureaucrats coming between our health care providers and their patients. and if we don't repeal obamacare we are going to destroy medicine as we know it. not just medicare and medicaid as we know it, but health care as we know it. and, colleagues, that's 1/6 of our economy today and it will be growing each and every year. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call

loan, which was given in segments, the law set up in the 2005 energy bill said a couple of things. one, in order for a company to qualify ar if loan, there had to be a reasonable expectation that they could pay back the principal and interest. two, they had to be able to complete the project. three, on the loan, the taxpayers could not be subordinate to any other investors. in other words, what they're looking into is was any information given or withhold that suggested that solyndra couldn't pay back the loan. there were a couple of things about that. it had to do with a market for

a material used to make solar panels. there was a big demand for it and the price went up. as long as the price went up, then their solar panels were cheaper and competitive but in 2008, spain an germany stopped subsidizing the other material, china began making cheaper ones and the price declined. solyndra was now no longer competitive. that's one of the reasons why the loan committee said this isn't going to fly. we need more informing. we don't think this is going to work an they voted unanimously to stop it. then they got the loan again and in 2011, earlier this year they got an extra $70 million from the taxpayers and we're wondering why. it looked like many indications were they weren't going to make it. in 2009, september, they said the analyst from the department of energy said this company

will be bankrupt an won't have enough assets by september of 2011. and indeed, they declared bankruptcy this month. >> our long--- hypoour longtime -- host: our lock-time watchers have seen this. what do we need to know? guest: we want to make sure taxpayers know we're head down this road and we want to make sure the justice department and attorney general get this. we have yet to hear from eric holder on this. but what are they looking for? what is -- why is the f.b.i. involved? what is treasury doing? >> are those folks testifying as well? guest: they're not. there may be a question that the judiciary committee will take on some of this as well.

so we'll see where these things go but we'll continue to probe and find out what happened to the money and are the taxpayers going to get it back? host: i think there was one article that said, solyndra executives said they don't think they'll be able to pay it all back? guest: someone will get the money. if there was a subordination clause that other investors will get their money back my reading of the law is that it's not legal. this is where we need some other judges or other people to weigh in on this. i want to know that our attorney general is acting on maff of the taxpayers. if not, my wonder is, will there be some private attorneys out there that on behalf of taxpayers will frankly sue saying on behalf of the taxpayers, we want the money to go back to treasury. host: have you talked to anyone about doing that? guest: i've talked to lawyers

and they tell me that taxpayers would have a standing. host: what about state attorneys? guest: they might also. if it turns out that, even for the basis of states to lose this kind of money and put these kinds of programs in jeopardy, there's a concern. host: if there's a state attorney general eyeing higher office, is that good politics? guest: i know that in the last week, the amount of comments i've heard from people everywhere is they really feel at this point, maybe congress is really taking some action to fight for them. what i find interesting is that some people say it's only 1% of the fund. yet taxpayers say that's staggering. $535 million is seen as, eh, what are you going to do? that's huge amounts of money. host: isn't that part -- republicans have advocated for some of these loans, that there

are people who believe in nuclear energy that advocate for loan programs to that industry. the argument is, it's a risk. they can't get up off the ground without this kind of support. when you take that risk, you're going to lose some of the money. guest: i think those programs do have some merit, particularly when you mention nuclear. banks are concerned about that because these projects may drag on for years and years and years. banks are hesitant. sometimes you're talking about loaning billions to develop a nuclear power plant. i'm not talking about getting with the program. i don't hear many people talking about it that way. it's a matter of how you weigh the risk. with something done here -- and was something done that masked the risk and hid the factors out there. the questions i had last week for jonathan swift who manages for the department of energy was, who ok'd it? how was this done? he said my lawyers told me it was ok to change a subordinate clause. my staff before me said these other things are there.

that's why i raised the question, who is in charge? that's the point that is a concern. the overall program has -- is something done wrong in the process of this particular loan. host: that brings up the issue, shoup somebody lose their job over this? should somebody's head roll in the administration? energy secretary steven chu, should he be held responsible? guest: i don't know who is involved there. but someone either didn't review thing rrs were misled by outside forces. and it is very important to find it. that's the part we have to fix. so that the whole loan program doesn't fall apart. host: if you find out that someone is responsible for this, should they go? guest: if they are responsible, yes, they should, but that doesn't get our money back.

if private invest crors get their money first, that doesn't fly with me. host: who gos after the money? guest: i think in a situation like this, i'm not an attorney but what i've been advised is the question whether the contract for the loan is null and void. if a contract is based upon violating the law, it's not a contract. and if the clause from the energy bill says you can't subordinate taxpayers, that may violate the terms of the loan. host: there are examples here. host: considering there's too much taxpayers dollars, resources focused on this. guest: if they were coming clean, you wouldn't need this

investigation. if energy tole us up front this is going on, we wouldn't need to pursue this. we had to subpoena the records from the department of energy. they wouldn't release them. once we got the records, we found emails of actions taking place and found the communications between people from department of energy and solyndra and within the department of energy saying, this isn't ready for primetime. this company is going to run out of money. the liquidity isn't there. that was important. had someone come clean at the onset, we wouldn't need these investigations but we're talking about $535 million that may be lost. i think it is worth pursuing it. host: democrats on the committee, henry waxman and diana degette, have sent two letters to the oversight committee of energy and commerce, first of all, they want the committee to have those that invested, private investors to the tune of about $1 billion each to come before the committee and testify as to why they gave money to

solyndra. perhaps there's evidence they can provide that they thought this was a viable corporation, a viable company and that's why they went forward with their money. guest: it's worth asking those questions. but the other issue, if that was the case, they thought it was viable, why and who pushed for the switch of the taxpayers number two and the investors are number one. mr. kaiser put together many of these loans. the series this year was $75 million, the government put in $70 million of taxpayers' money. but we need details of the timeline, who knew what, when. that may be a valid question. host: and they wrote a letter to congressman cliff stearns saying that the chief executive officer of solyndra met with us to assure us they were in a strong financial position and were in no danger of failing. what happened when they go

before the committee members, not under oath, but said, we're fine. guest: my question is what committee members did they go before? was it privately? they need to come out and answer to the taxpayers what happened. host: phone calls, william, democrat in connecticut, you're up first. caller: i agree that these guys should testify. i just want to make it clear that from my knowledge, it was the bush administration's people that started this and looked at this throughout. so -- and all -- also, mr. kaiser was not personally informsed -- invested in this foundation he was affiliated with.

host: his first question, apps that, but then he talked about kaiser and the waltons. guest: this was started, they said no, but like lazarus that rose again from the dead a couple of weeks later, why? what occurred? yet it didn't just end there in january of 2009 when it died and came back to life. other indications came through. so what i want to make sure we're not doing is saying, because it started under bush and rose again ourned because ma, there must be political shenanigans, why was it ok for bush but not obama. that's not the case. under the previous administration, the people said no, it wasn't aidey, they needed more information. what was the information and who knew what was going on that either made this a good investment? one concern for taxpayers here is, did it become an enticing investment because the taxpayers took a back seat and

the investors would get their money back first? they had little or no risk at that point. we lose the money as taxpayers. if that's the case, that changes the dynamics. would the kiesers and waltons and others have kept their investments if they were number two? that's an important thing to find out and you can probably only find out by lacking at take books. host: is that effort under way to get them before the committee? guest: i'll be asking congressman stearns about that, but it is worthwhile. all this is worthwhile to pursue. host: there's a tweet here that says, repive murphy, will you be investigating product dumping by china which destroyed this company? guest: as chairman of the caucus, -- steel caucus, one of the things we've been working

on for years, we've been investigating what china has been involved with. they dump steel products and other product, they send inferior products to the united states, whether it's medications, pharmaceutical manufactured products, diapers, children's toy, lunch boxes, drywall, all these things. but also what they're involved with, manipulation of currency. this is extremely important. when they manipulate their currency against the dollar, so they end up sending goods out of china cheaper than it costs to buy materials here. i'm ok if china wants to compete in a fair and free market across the world but they do several things that manipulate that. and i do think it's something they should take action on. i testified a number of times before the i.t.c. saying that i'm concerned about china's ma lip nation of products. sometimes they've found in favor and said china does manipulate, and if it's clear

that china was moving products into the u.s. at a cheaper rate, meaning solyndra was no longer competitive. if they can't compete, why send money there? host: christine, a republican in pennsylvania. >> i'm sorry, you've got me listed as a republican, i'm a democrat. host: ok, christine is a democrat. sorry. caller: what prompted me to call is representative murphy sowned fine with sending public money to support nuclear power. and i think that's just a bad idea. we've got three nuclear power plants right now in china that the cores have burnt out. we've got a typhoon or hurricane over there right this minute, nuclear power plants are a money pit. and i don't think the public money should go into something

that is such -- so dangerous. we also don't hear about it on the news. guest: let me talk a few things about that. china is building nuclear power plants by the scores, maybe well over 100 and using a lot of u.s. technology, westinghouse, toshiba, being primary sources of that and other companies involved as well. world leaders in nuclear technology is westinghouse, g.e., and other companies. look, we have got to become more energy independent. instead of sending $129 billion a year to opec countries who often use that to pay al qaeda and tall bab and hurt our soldiers. we also need clean energy. we can go a number of directions with the clean energy. in areas where you can use solar or wind do it, natural gas, use it. but with regard to this, often

times the rules an regulations take so much time that many times banks don't want to invest in some of these areas with where they're going to build the power plants. i believe we should be build manager and the new technology is far, far safer, such as the ap-1000. you need passive systems to take care of things. what's happened in japan with the tsunami and other places are things that the nuclear industry is looking at. the n.r.c. and others are looking into those things and assuring public safety but it is a matter of china is advancing on their technology, they're building these things and i think because of the risk and the years it takes to comply with federal regulations, to have the federal government say, we'll guarantee some loans, but again it isn't just the loan program itself, it has to be done in a way that looks at, is the company viable, can they really do it? if the risk is too high we don't go into it.

host: new to joe in dallas, texas, an independent caller. caller: are they doing fracking in pennsylvania where you're from? guest: yes. caller: so you do understand the oil and gas industry like we do here. guest: yes, i'm also the chair of the natural gas caucus. caller: t. boone pickens comes up with natural gas and solar panels and all those things. guest: we have an abundant resource, what he's referring to for the viewers is the u.s. has massive amounts of natural gas. by using a technique called fracking where in the marcellus shale in parts of pennsylvania, ohio, other places, they'll go down 7,000 or 8,000 feet then

the bit turns and goes into this layer of shale and fractures it. i believe that could be used for transportation, chemical industry, a lot of chemicals are made out of natural gas. that's exciting for american industry rather than importing natural gas. what's interesting is that our committee on energy and commerce was talking about building a liquefied natural gas pipes on the coast where gas could be coming in from other countries. now we talk about how to export them. it's an abundant energy resource. we need a portfolio, a menu, of energy options for this country so we're not dependent on other countries. we see what countries like russia did with the ukraine when they pulled the plug and didn't help them. i want us to sustain ourselves. host: when you look at solyndra, with the $550 million

loan, they're scheduled to be testifying on friday and expected to invoke the fifth, but you compare that loan to legislation that was introduced in the 112th congress called the natgas act, which would provide subsidies for natural gas at all levels of production, from infrastructure to consumer tax credit, it includes a tax credit for up to 80% of the marginal cost of buying a natural gas vehicle, an infrastructure tax credit. when you rook at the price tag of $5 billion, can we afford to be spending that kind of money and then turn around and investigating something that costs $535 million? guest: a great question. here's how that works. what opec has been doing for years, they raise prices ful we start to do something, ethanol or natural gas, they lower the price.

they manipulate the market like any monopoly does. in the 1970's, we were concerned we were importing 40% of oil and now it's 60%. at some point we have to say, enough is enough. because we have abundant supplies of natural gs, the question is, how do we start using our own? host: why can't the industry do it on its own? why does it need taxpayer money or subsidies? guest: the issue is, for people to start using natural gas vehicles, it costs a couple thousand more to do that, sla so what the government did with hybrid vehicles, only that was about 60,000 vehicles, not enough to make a difference. but if you had fleet vehicles, everything from buses to delivery trucks to garbage trucks that go from point a and return to point a in the morning, you can make investments in those and reduce, massively reduce the amount of oil we