on not for-profit insurance. it seems to me that if we kind of connect the dots here, it kind of jumps out at you. if you want to have a system that has universal coverage, and i think most of us believe we need to expand coverage, if we want to contain costs, and everyone is other countries, germany, japan, france, belgium, switzerland that has adopted this alternative model has much better costs than we do. .

debate more fundamentally. because to me that alternative model pulls off a better prospect for success. i think it's closer to the culture of america, the system that's been adopted in germany and france and japan and switzerland and belgium than the model that's been adopted in england or the model that's

been adopted in canada. because those are also examples of different models. >> would the senator yield for a question? >> i'll yield for just a minute so i can make this concluding point? somehow it seems to me that we have got in a lock in this sterile debate that seems that the only alternatives are what we got now or public option. those are not the only alternatives. there is another alternative and it's a model that's been adopted in country after country after country and those countries do have universal coverage. they do a better job of controlling costs and they have higher quality outcomes than ours. let me just conclude on this point for my state. i represent north dakota. we have the second lowest level

of reimbursement in the nation under medicare. to tie all reimbursement to medicare levels of reimbursement, what according to every major hospital administer in my state -- administrator in my state bankrupt every major hospital in my state. and my state is not alone. because there are other states that have low levels of reimbursement. so the details really matter in this discussion. i thank my colleagues. >> would the senator yield for a question on your charts? >> would the senator yield? >> does the senator yield to a question? >> yes. >> the first one you said on preventative deaths, are you aware if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents that the united states actually is better than those other countries? >> you know, you can rack and stack these -- >> yeah. but that has nothing to do with health care. auto accidents don't have

anything to do with if. we are a much more mobile society. on the preventative deaths, if you take out auto accidents, they do public transportation -- and so you have to compare health care system with health care system. if you compare cancer rates, survival rates after five years, cardiovascular disease after five years -- >> we do very well. >> the united states does better than europe. >> we do very well. >> we do better than the countries you pointed out. >> i can tell you this. i go back to the statistics that have been generated by lots of organizations on quality outcomes. and other countries that do have universal care, that do a much better job of controlling costs than we do on metric after metric finish ahead of us. and i just direct you to the t.r. reid book which is loaded with analysis from objective observers as to quality countries, much lower costs

than we do compared to g.d.p. whether we're first in a category, if somebody is first, nonetheless, high quality outcomes in those countries at a much lower cost. >> i think we need to be fair when we're comparing statistics. >> i'm always for fairness. >> would the senator please yield for a question? >> i'd be happy to. >> the senator has made a very compelling argument about the need for competition among nonprofit insurance companies. the senator is laying the predicate for his position which is in the bill which is a co-op. might i suggest to the senator that co-op may be a term that's used in north dakota and is understood but it's not in a lot of the other states. and in effect what the senator is talking about is an

insurance company that is owned by its policyholders. in normal terminology among consumers this is known as a mutual insurance company. so the senator might suggest calling it the mutual health insurance nonprofit company as the competitor to the rest of the for-profit plans in the health insurance exchange. >> you know, what it's called to me is of much less importance than what it accomplishes. and what needs to be accomplished i think if you look at these other systems just kind of as a background test of what works and what has lower cost, high-quality outcomes, universal coverage, our systems that have a very strong not-for-profit competitor as the insurance

intermediary. that doesn't mean it has to be government run. and a government-run system is also accomplish those things. i don't denigrate that. i don't take away from the ability of a government-run system to do that as well. but when i look for systems that seem to me to be closest to what we have now which is an employer-based system, and closest to the culture of our country, i see these other examples as having to me a better chance of fitting our country. and, again, they have lower costs, they have high-quality outcomes and they have universal coverage. >> would the senator yield for a question? >> i'll be happy to. >> this is the fact that you

brought up co-ops is something i thought would be a separate amendment. >> i didn't bring it up. i responded to a question. >> well, in the eye of the beholder. >> no, let it be clear. i did not -- >> well, that's what we have been talking about, and amendment before us is the public option amendment. and i would advise my colleagues that that is the amendment before us. i have a great deal to say about co-ops. which is not what you would say based upon a lot of research. and i want to have a chance to say that, but i want to be able to vote on my amendment which i think is a lot more effective and is -- and i also respond to some of the criticisms that's been made about it before i get into, you know, a debate with you about co-ops which is not part of my amendment. >> i've tried to stay away from

that part of the debate in respect for the fact that we are on your amendment. i tried in my own review to talk about what i see is the weaknesses for the state that i represent with your amendment and you and i have had this conversation, as you know, many times. but also to talk about different models that we see around the rest of the world. not that we're going to adopt any of them, but as an indicator of what we might be thinking about. and i think that's a worthy debate. >> all right. next on the list. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me just clarify my view on this and maybe ask a question or two of the staff. the amendment before us differs from senator shummer's amendment in some -- schumer's

amendment in some significant ways. tell me if i'm right or wrong as you understand it. first of all, the amendment before us would not -- it would have a plan administrator chosen who would then operate the plan? >> not true. >> is that wrong? >> that's wrong. >> who operates the plan? i have rockefeller amendment number 6, c-6 in front of me. >> it has a plan administrator to get it started. but, you know, co-ops has $6 billion to get them started. you know, the plan administrator is not going to be -- and i said in my argument, which i wish i could get back onto rather than talking about senator schumer's argument and senator conrad's argument is that it's not government run.

this administrator has nothing to do with setting insurance with having anything to do with the marketplace within which the public option or the consumer choice plan would operate. so does it have an administrator? technically, the answer is yes. but that administrator has no power to involve himself or herself in anything to do with the consumer choice plan. >> ok. well, let me go on and describe what i understand based on what i've read here. the amendment does, it has the secretary of health and human services establish a plan, name an administrator. then, it makes provisions that for the first two years of the plan medicare rates apply and that providers who to staff or

not? >> that is my understanding. >> and then after the second year the administrator would be directed to set rates at -- to determine competitive provider payment rates and adjust rates to that level, is that accurate also? >> according to c.b.o.'s interpretation after 2014 they would have to negotiate payment rates. so it wouldn't be quite setting the rates but they would negotiate rates with the public

option. >> ok. so there is no difference then between the amendment we're considering now and senator schumer's proposal which is going to offer later on this issue of negotiating rates except for the two-year period of time, is that your understanding? >> that is my understanding. >> so just for the first two years there's a requirement that medicare rates be paid to providers under senator rockefeller's amendment and in addition there's a requirement that anyone -- any provider who is providing services to medicare beneficiaries also provide services to people participating in that plan, but after the first two years any provider can opt out and after the first two years there is a negotiation of rates which presumably based on all that we've been saying around here

presumably would mean rates would go up if the rates are going to be negotiated to be competitive with other health care insurance providers, is that an accurate assumption? >> again, referring back to the c.b.o. analysis, they do assume that the rates, once the negotiation begins, would gradually increase. so that on average they would roughly equal the rates paid by private insurers operating in the exchanges around the end of the 10-year budget window. >> and how does c.b.o. score the amendment? >> c.b.o. scores the amendment as saving $50 billion over the 10-year window. >> ok. and do they have an estimate as to the number of consumers that would choose their insurance through this option if it occurred? >> they do. they estimate that in 2015 enrollment in the public plan

would start out higher than 1/3 of the 25 million who are estimated to purchase through the exchanges. so about eight million people. and that would gradually decline to 1/4. so around 6.25 million as the premiums rise. >> would the senator yield for a question? >> sure. >> i think that makes the point. i mean, i don't even want to get started on government-run, sliply slope into single payer and the rest of it. you know, if you're starting up a consumer choice plan that doesn't exist, yes, you have an administrator. and for the first two years you have medicare rates, but then it all stops.

and then it, you know, the administrator doesn't have any way to change the rates. that's competition within the exchange. to the c.b.o. thing that the cost of health care would go up. well, the cost of health care has been going up forever and ever. the question is, at what rate, how fast? and what the clear thing about the public option -- or the consumer choice plan is that it would slow to some degree it would slow that rate of growth. but even more important than that is that it would give people who do not have a way of working with their insurance companies or their insurance companies are working them over and they don't know it is would give them a safe harbor, a place to go in the exchange under the rules of the exchange. and they would fair better there because it's not for

profit. look, there are a lot of things that senator conrad was just discussing it would be nonprofit. blue cross blue shields started out as nonprofit. didn't stay that way very long. it's a for profit. you know, i don't want to get in the co-op thing. i see that as a separate argument at a separate time. i will mention there are only about four or seven plans in the united states today talking about starting up a plan. i mean, good grief. that's going to be a monster project. but there is not control and there is the medicare for two years after which people can opt out of it and the administrator does not have anything to do with negotiating rates or anything else. that's done through the exchange. there's no ma nevada lent or as

the senator from north dakota said the devil in the details in this. >> so i -- >> yeah. >> let me finish my comments, if i could, mr. chairman. >> you're not going to respond to me? >> i'm glad to respond. i don't understand your amendment the way you describe it in that i do think the administrator would be directed after the first two years to negotiate rates with providers that are competitive. and i think that's a good feature. i'm not criticizing that. i'm -- i think that's a good feature. but that's a different interpretation of your amendment. so i am certainly glad to respond to that extent. i don't know if staff has a point of view on that. >> again, i'm referring simply to the c.b.o. analysis in order to provide information that allows you to compare the score

that they've given us to the assumptions they're making about the amendment that's been offered. >> well, let me conclude my points, mr. chairman. i think it's obvious from the discussion there are -- i think first of all it's obvious we need more competition in the selling of health care insurance, and there are too few choices for folks out there. and we've all talked about this map which shows the market share of the two largest health plans, my state. and we can see there is very little competition in our states. so we need more competition. that part's very obvious. a public option is a good antidote to that. and, therefore, i strongly support having a public option. but it's clear there are

various varieties of public option. the one senator rockefeller has now proposed which is not my preferred choice because of the tie to medicare. i think there is a problem in tying rates of -- rates to providers to medicare reimbursement. i think that's a mistake. >> two years? >> well, for two years, i think it causes a dislocation. and i think providers strenuously object or at least some that's talked to me strenuously object to us setting it up that way. doing it for two years here there are always opportunities to try to extend it. >> but then if you're going with the two-year theory and the senator from north dakota said it will put all my hospitals out of business, with all due respect for the senator , i think that's nonsense.

medicare for two years is just a way to get this thing started. and then it's cut off. will opt out. hospitals don't have to worry about it. he has to make the case to me that all of his hospitals will get shut down in two years. >> i'm not trying to make that case because i don't think that those kind of dire circumstances would result. but as i say my preference would not to have it tied to medicare. my preference would be what we tried to do in the health committee, more of what i believe senator schumer is going to propose later which is to leave the setting of rates that are paid to providers for negotiation from the beginning of the program on. and i think that would be preferable. and then i think the public interest option what senator conrad talked about, the co-on idea or mutual -- co-op idea or

mutual insurance, i think that also has promise. as i say, the i think the most direct way to do it would be to set up a nonprofit and tell them to go negotiate rates with providers and compete. i think it would make sense there. i think it would make sense for us to consider it here and hopefully do it. but the overwhelming conclusion i have, i reach is that whichever of these options we wind up with we will be improving the situation because we'll be providing more choice. so i compliment the senator onon offering his amendment. and i'll stop with that. >> mr. chairman? >> senator schumer is next. >> will the senator yield for a question? >> senator bingaman, i have the floor. >> i am through. >> senator schumer, you are

next on the list. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as is abundantly clear, senator rockefeller is offering an amendment. i will then offer another amendment which has some changes but i'm not discussing my amendment right now. i am here discussing senator rockefeller's amendment. >> thank you. >>ie support it. and -- why i support it. and let me just -- the basic argument we face here is should there be a public option? should there be some kind of nonfor-profit that is set up by the government if a nonprofit could set up itself and spring up like grass i think that would be a good idea. senator conrad has done a good job on this. we've had some disagreement but that's for another day. there is not a lot of compettigs which senator

bingaman referred to is there. there's not much competition. and we all know the american way is to bring more competition. and my colleagues on the other side say, leave it up to the private insurance industry to bring competition. frankly, many of us tonight believe it will happen. the reason so many of our markets are concentrated -- are highly concentrated, not just insurance but many of the large fields have very few competitors because it's in the shareholders' interest in each company not to compete particularly on price. we find it in industry after industry after industry. and we can all argue about how strenuous our antitrust policies should be to create more competition in the private field. but the bottom line is we know now that we don't have it. and the trouble with health

care is that without competition the prices keep going up. and that is not, my friend, orrin hatch mentioned medicare prices are going up. they are. so is private sector insurance, even at a greater rate. so the increase in price is not the domain of the government or the domain of the private sector. it is rampant in both, and i would say it relates to the instructure of the markets. a, we don't have what the economists would call perfect knowledge. when your doctor says to you need this m.r.i. spectrosopy. you don't know what it is but you trust it and you take it. at the same time you are not paying for it because we have the government paying it -- we are all paying for it indirectly. but you are not paying the cost of that spectrosopy.

you are over 65 and are poor and have government paying for it. but most, not all, but most americans, private insurance pays for it. why do we have private insurance? it's very simple. why do we have insurance in health care but not in so many other areas? it's because health is the most important thing. it relates to god's gift to each us which is life. and we all feel that some doctor will tell us at some point, your husband, your wife, your child, your parent, your brother, your sister needs this major operation, surgery, drug that costs $100,000. and we all fear we won't have it so we buy insurance in case that happens to us. but the combination of no knowledge of what we're being asked to do, take this exam, undergo this operation, we don't go to medical school. we know when we buy a chevy versus a cadillac or when we

buy a garden apartment or a mansion. we have no idea when it comes to health care by in large. people say go online. maybe for certain kind of prescription drugs but not much else. i don't know how to read an x-ray and go online and look at my whatever i got in there and see if this particular operation, m.r.i. or whatever is needed. so you put that together and are the costs are going through the roof. and the number one comparative for us is to get those costs down. i think every one of us would agree. whether republican, democrat, liberal, moderate, conservative, we'll get to another point. senator can't we will has done -- senator cantwell has done a good job. we should talk about as we move through this bill, but it's in the chairman's -- it's in the chairman's -- whatever it is -- the one he introduced.

modification. so the logic has been in the past, who is going to check costs when the doctor prescribes this and you don't know if you need it but you're not paying for it directly? it should have been the insurance company because the insurance company is supposed to say, hey, that's going to be too expensive and it's not really necessary. when say a doctor who wants to maximize his or her income goes for it. but guess why that doesn't happen? good old smith adam economics would happen because there would be 25 insurance companies and a couple of them would say, hey, i'll veto that and get more customers by having lower rates. lower premiums. but it doesn't happen because of this chart. and frankly the bill does many good things. the chairman is right on the insurance industry.

but it doesn't get at this one problem of concentration. and those of us who support the public option support adding some real competition to the could hing a lated, occified and fundamentally anti-competitive insurance market. and i don't blame the insurance company. their job is to protect their shareholders. that's what the chairman of the board and the president swear to do. but that's not our job. our shareholders are our constituents. and so we need a public option to create competition and to bring costs down. it's my belief nothing will do it better. we can put regulations on the insurance companies, but their natural inclination is to escape their -- >> we're leaving the finance committee markup of its health care bill for live coverage of

the u.s. house now. you can continue to watch the senate finance committee live as senators offer amendments to the bill on c-span3. it's also live on c-span.org and c-span radio. the house meeting for morning hour. a time set aside for short speeches. legislative starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a temporary extension of small business programs. live coverage now of the u.s. house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: september 29, divine, i hereby appoint the honorable william lacy clay to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker

of the house of of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority

leaders and minority leader whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank -- i would ask, mr. speaker, that the -- the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman will suspend. the chair requests the assistance of the sergeant at arms to restore order in the chamber. the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery.

the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. this summer many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle lined up to criticize the recovery and reinvestment act on the floor of the house claiming it wasn't working. in an august 21 newsletter, for example, the minority leader stated, i quote, by any objective measure the trillion dollar stimulus spending bill isn't working. let's examine some of those objectives measures. the number ever new unemployment claims dropped in august for the lowest total of the year. in addition, the number of people claiming continuing unemployment benefits for more than one week decreased by 123,000. unemployment remains a challenge, of course, because as we all know, unemployment is a lightning indicator. because of the recovery act we saved one million jobs that otherwise would have been lost in this economy. this june home sales increased by 11% over may. the largest increase in eight years. a total home sales this year have increased by 3.4% over

2008 indicating that market is stabilizing. after declining by 0.1% in the last economic quarter of the bush administration, u.s. productivity growth has increased 6.6% in the most recent quarter. the manufacture sector is improving. orders for durable goods were up 4.9% in july. the largest increase in two years and has risen in three of the past five months. consumer confidence insection rose once again in august to 54.1%, more than double the february low of 25. demonstrating consumers are viewing the economy in an increasingly positive light. the dow jones industrial average has grown more than 11% this year, returning value to the 401-k's and college funds of american families. we know there's a lot more to be done. but even republican economists stated the stimulus is working. mark standy, the economic advisor to john mccain's presidential campaign last year, said the stimulus contributed to g.d.p. growth.

dr. zandy recently stated, i quote, as the fiscal stimulus provides the most maximum benefit in the next few months, real gross domestic product should turn from negative to positive in the current quarter. current projection so that the recovery act increased g.d.p. by 2.3% this year. we voted on the recovery act this winter, economists from across the political spectrum eam emfatically stated the fiscal stimulus was seengs. dr. zandy, for example, stated the stimulus plan as laid out will provide a vital boost to a flagging economy. president reagan's chief economic advisor, martin fell stein, testified before a -- melstein, testified before a joint house committee, that a large economic stimulus would be essential to avoid catastrophe and catastrophic unemployment. then bernanke, the republican apointed chairman of the federal reserve stated, the 5d mcmorris rodgers and congress are currently discussing substantial fiscal package that

can passed could provide an economic boost. since that he has said that the stimulus bill for the recovery is in fact responsible for a large part of that recovery. dr. zand, chairman bernanke, were all right. as the objective data now shows. my friends on the other side of the aisle have made a to oppose virtually every initiative of the new president, president obama, no matter what the substance or content. now as president obama sets to reform our broken health care system, they are at it once again, refusing to play a construckive role in the process. president obama has worked toward a bipartisan solution for health care and has made a number of positive overtures to incorporate several concepts proposed by the republican side of the aisle. for example he committed to tort reform. he embraced senator john mccain's initiatives in providing low cost connection for individuals with previous existing medical conditions, he pledged to work with any serious efforts to improve and provide more affordable, accessible health care for all

americans. despite that fact, the president has incorporated republican ideas and proposals into his plan, the other side still refuses to work with him. their plan, just say no. when faced the largest recession since world war ii, the american people didn't want paragraph zant bickering. they wanted solutions. with the recovery act and other stabilizing measures we enacted those solutions in this congress. and we have seen positive results. our economic recovery act -- efforts are working. but the republicans just said no. leave the health care reform is clear. health insurance premiums over the past decade have increased three times greater than incomes and they will increase 5% more this year. millions of americans with previous existing medical conditions are finding themselves unable to access health care even if they have health insurance. a recent survey by the kaiser family foundation revealed without reform 8% of business also drop health insurance for their employees altogether.

still republicans say no. providing affordable and accessible health care, the american people will not accept no for an answer any longer. they want to hear us say yes. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1 , the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today. >> so the house has gaveled out until 2:00 when members will begin legislative work. on the agenda today, several bills wlug one that establishes the civil rights trail stfment we expect votes on these bills later today. also coming this week a measure that authorizes $1.5 billion for five years to aid pakistan. and possible debate on several conference reports. live coverage of the house

continues today at 2:00 eastern when members gavel back in. today's white house briefing is scheduled for 1:00 eastern. we'll bring that to you live on c-span. until then, a portion of today's "washington journal." host: here is "the new york times" this morning. making sense of the health-care debate. a showdown is how they describe it. joining us this morning is kristen jenson, a reporter with bloomberg news to help us out with the coverage. let us start with that headline, showdown day. what can we expect on the public option amendment? dogs that it is being pushed by two democrats on the committee -- guest: it is being pushed by two democrats on the committee. the chairman has been working for months to get a bipartisan

compromise and republicans are very much against the idea of a public option. if he decided to drop it altogether. he went with nonprofit cooperative that get some government seed money. he was hoping he could win republicans. so far he has not, but so far he might have olympia snowe at the edge. a lot of the progressive democrats really want is in the bill. there are 13 democrats on the committee, 10 republicans. see how the vote shakes out. host: what do you expect? can chairman baucus pull together his democratic coalition? guest: it looks like most democrats will vote for it but baucus will probably be able to defeat the amendment -- we expect him to vote against him, and we also expect senator conrad to vote against it, a democrat, a big proponent of the co-ops, and then blanche lincoln, democrat of arkansas, she has been fairly vocal about her concerns with the public option. really he does not need to other

people to go with him but he will probably get to other democrats and will go down something like 13-10. host: will today be the end of the debate over the public option? guest: senator schumer said he expects a tough fight in the finance committee. there are plans to bring it back up to the floor. there is some support among democrats. they do have 60 votes. it will be a big fight. you can talk about the house later. host: we will keep checking in with you during this first hour of today's "washington journal" as we talk about the health care debate. the first phone call comes from thomas on the democrats' line. audit ocaller: the debate so fas been muddied by lies by -- from people or stupid or in the

pockets of the health-care industry. death panels, all these things that are myths. but the thing i hope with the stem cell research that obama has pushed for federal funding, that the democrats can actually grow a spy because they need to stand up for the public option. the block this bill is the worst you would possibly have. -- the baucus bill is the worst to possibly have. if you keep watering it down you could end up like the stimulus bill debate, watered-down with more tax cuts and not one republican voted for it anyway. they will make it for a terrible health care bill. and then the republicans will not vote for it, and we will have a terrible reform and i would not vote for a democrat. i supported obama but obama should veto any bill that does not include the public option.

host: mark fofrom washington, d. of a cut the debate has been low quality and almost embarrassing -- caller: the debate has been low quality and almost and harassing, with the president tried to rush through without people know what he is talking about was a bad decision. then you had the town hall meetings over the summer weather really was no plan in place. nothing was decided, but yet these poor, hersman and senators had to go out in front of the public and defend something that really didn't exist. then you have president obama doing all of the talk shows and interviews trying to push health-care reform, but even he does not know what the final package is going to look like and what the plan really is. host: let me get your reaction to it this ""washington times" political section -- gop approach to health care call

targeted, and a large alternative plan. the republican strategy so far does not have much to show for it. but one of the most substantial republican arguments and one that shows signs of resonating came from mr. bunting, it called for the entire bill to be posted online and legislative tax for three days before the committee cast its final vote. the congressional budget office will also have to submit a full analysis of the bill requiring two weeks of work. what do you think? caller: i heard about last night and i think it is a positive sign. but even if you put the bill for three days, who is going to understand what the words mean? i think what needs to be done is this is such a big problem and such a big issue, we need to take some small, incremental steps, to fix some very serious problems in health care. we can pass a bill that says if you are offering insurance, you have to offer it even if people have pre-existing conditions.

we can make sure that if you change jobs, your health insurance is portable. i think those things are doable and would set us on the right direction. because we do have the greatest health care here and the world as far as treatment goes, but everyone knows that access is just horrible. host: let us hear from amy from chelsea, michigan. what are your thoughts? what are your thoughts this morning? caller: a i:my, but that's ok. i would try to speak in a higher tone of boards. host: ok, scott. caller: i think the whole debate is becoming complicated unnecessarily. i don't know why. citizens can't, first of all, buy into the health insurance that the federal employees enjoy. for cost -- it could pay for

itself. charge me a fair price and allow me to buy into the same system. i also heard the idea discussed that medicare should be opened up. i think that could be a more expensive option. but let me buy into it. i am not saying give it away. why can't i not come as a public option, buy into one of those? the president of the mayo clinic was on your program segni we could save so much money. i would just like to finish just by saying that there is a difference between pre-existing conditions, which we all seem to get, and exclusions. i never hear the politicians talk about the mary had of exclusions that the average -- myriad of exclusions that the

average health care owner of a policy can fall victims to. costs above and beyond -- you can have the annual deductible? @@@@ what we don't understand is the myriad of exclusions that add to the cost, out-of-pocket costs to us from our policies. host: ok. the latest in the "politico" back and forth from this legislation comes from the republican national committee. here is the headline. "as finance markup resumes, g.o.p. to harp on tax hikes." that will be the strategy heading into today's markup. and here is a web video from the republican national committee put out yesterday. >> with at least eight new taxes, your health insurance cost also skyrocket. of course, it's easy to raise taxes when you live in denial

about the very meaning of the word. >> under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money. how is that not a tax? >> that's not true, george. for us to say that you got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. >> webster's dictionary, tax, a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. >> obama health care taxes. wrong for health care, wrong for our economy. host: in "the new york times" this morning, they report that within hours of that web video coming out, the democratic national committee fired up an email message countering the 1:45 spot noting that the american medical association support of the house health care legislation asking, would doctors support reform that would institute huge new taxes on them?" that's from "the new york

times" this morning. rter from bloomberg news. talk about how republicans are going about debating this legislation, both on the senate finance committee and then those numbers outside the senate finance committee who are waiting for it to come to the floor. guest: one of their main argument is this will raise your taxes. certainly there are proposals -- in the house there is a flat out surtax on income, so that certainly is a tax. and there could be arguments on other issues. if you are going to have an individual mandate that everyone will have to buy insurance and assess that as a fee, that could be called a tax. and republicans are focusing on the idea of government getting bigger. we did some polling on bloomberg news and we asked people, do you support this particular plank that obama is proposing, the support this? we found that overwhelmingly

american supported things, even such as the employer mandate that employers have to offer insurance, but the ask them over all do you support the health care reform effort, it was very tight -- almost no difference between those who supported and didn't. we found that people weren't just suspicious of government, very worried about the deficit, spending, taxes. host: amy from chelsea, michigan. talking about how the health care debate has shaped up. caller: my primary thought is we are asking the wrong question. if we would stop asking the question how we ensure everyone and start asking, how can we become a healthier nation, i think it would be easier for people to come together and find solutions. the second point i wanted to make its people have a good reason to be suspicious of the cost of government-managed health care. the primary reason for that is

because of administrative costs. medicare, i hear people talking about medicare having the lowest overhead and the reason for that is because medicare does not have to contract, they don't have to do negotiations. they are able to just tell people how much they are going to pay and that is how much of the providers have to accept. medicare actually has a huge administrative costs for the providers because the costs are shifted from the government to the providers and eventually back cost end up with the consumer. so health care providers are in the position -- the government during an audit of their records. the provider actually pays for all the costs around that. with private insurance is not that way. host: it sounds like you have experience with this. what is your profession? caller: i am registered nurse

and have a master's in health- care administration and i worked in a hospital -- right now i am in a nonprofit sector but prior to that i was in utilization management and quality management in the hospital. host: what are you seeing about how doctors are making decisions about medicare? whether to take medicare or not? caller: i can't speak necessarily to physicians because i work in a hospital but i can tell you and hospital, medicare and hospitals where the majority of our expensive health care is provided are really just bedfellows. they cannot exist without a job. obviously medicare needs hospitals to be providers. because approximately 40% of the care provided in hospitals in my area of the country is medicare, hospitals can't not take medicare patients because they need them to match their expensive to be the to cover expenses. so, hospitals are stuck.

they cannot get out underneath a contract, whether they can afford to take care about -- of those patients or not. host: you and others will be interested in our guests at 9:00 eastern time, dr. william brodie, who would this piece in friday's "the washington post." a fad for health care costs. what he is proposing is a federal reserve-type board for medicare. he is a former physician and currently president of the salk institute for biological studies in san diego. wyoming, democrats line. good morning. caller: i am just so fed up with all of these politicians. when they run to get elected, we are just really good businessmen. we can run this and do this. we have money for everything except health care. but yet they are putting themselves down. they are saying, we are these great people and we can run

things, but when it comes to running it, they can't. don't trust the government. don't trust us? is that is what they are saying? host: richard in georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. welcome back. government option and federal health care, that is a disaster. we see what happened with medicare -- by the way, they are going to pay for the program by gutting medicare, taking $500 billion out of the program. there is no such thing as a government auction -- this is a government mandate. if you opt out of the program or refuse to go in, there are fines of up to $25,000.10 year in jail for not joining the program. government does not belong in health care -- they need to get out of people's lives and they

need to quit coming between health care and the individual. we would be a lot better off. host: kristen johnson, let us talk about what -- medicare and what we can expect. guest: we have already seen an little bit of that. many senators are hearing from constituents who are really concerned about medicare, particularly medicare advantage, which is a subsidy for private plans. some medicare patients can go into a private plan and medicare helps with that. it is targeted for cuts in many of these bills. and senators, especially from states like florida, have many seniors worry about. bill nelson last week proposed an amendment where he wanted to restore some of that money. r@ ssroblem is err

it will be -- it will continue to be later on the senate floor. host: and "usa today's" editorial is how medicare turned into a boondoggle. and then below that don't penalize seniors. it's written by senator bill nelson who represents florida. costs needs to be reined in but let's do it gradually. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. couple weeks ago when you had the doctor on from the mayo clinic, he said that 65% of their patients were on medicare, and they had no problem running their clinic and hospital with that money.

as for people paying more taxes, i think i'd rather pay $200 or $300 worth in a public option plan than to pay $1,000 a month for an insurance payment which will be $12,000, $13,000 a year. i think you are a lot better off if you were to have the public option plan. if it were $200 or $300. host: ok. here's from "politico," public option may have a new life. it says the key now is momentum. and they're doing everything they can to convey confidence that president barack obama will eventually sign a health care bill into law that includes some sort of government coverage to compete with private insurers. tampa bay, florida, mark on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, ma'am. ok. first of all, i think that our

government is missing a lot of what the american people are saying. i do have health care insurance. it's not good health care insurance. and it's expensive. ok. what we're looking for is the government wants to step in and do something, let's do something about controlling costs. setting parameters for companies that allow us to be able to purchase our health care at a reasonable rate with reasonable parameters, and to me i think that that is the best move in the world than they can make. you know. i mean, my health care insurance is underwritten by my company. what is my company doing underwriting my -- they look at all my medical. where is my privacy? if the government takes it

over, where is my privacy? i don't believe they have any business in the private sector. but i do believe that something needs to be done about the outrageous costs of what we're paying. host: ok. are you happy with your health insurance, mark? caller: not particularly. i'm really not. .

>> inhurens reforms -- insurance reforms i already mentioned would do just that is making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. let me be clear.

it would only be an option for those that don't have insurance. no one would be forced to choose it. it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. in fact, based on congressional budget office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of americans would sign up. caller: because of the way the economy is. the fact that we are in a recession with what five million, six million people unemployed, no job. it was just bad timing on his part. and the way congress and the senate is going about trying to come up with something to save face is really ridiculous. i was watching the hearings the other day with senator kyl. looked like senator kyl and

bachus were going to start fighting or something. it's really a scam. it's really ridiculous. it's bad timing. number two, there is a bill that's waiting in the senate finance committee, s. 1699, nothing could be done with that bill because the senate finance committee is having these hearings about health care. so that bill is collecting dust. that bill is to extend unemployment benefits for 13 more weeks for over 400,000 people that are exhausting their unemployment benefits this month of september. host: the headline in congress daily today exos your sentiment. health debate foretells 2010 agenda. the long debate on health care has dimmed the process of other key pieces of democrats' agenda, with aides acknowledging legislation is increasingly unlikely to hit the senate floor before 2010.

sherry also mentioned senator kyl and the exchange that he had with the chairman of the senate finance committee. senator baucus. here's a little bit that have exchange. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. >> complete your thought. then i have to recognize the other senator. in deference, be courteous to other senators. >> mr. chairman it's courteous if you don't interrupt somebody right in the middle after sentence of an important point they are trying to make. i have not dominated this discussion. i have not filibuster in this -- filibustered in this market we have been having. i think everything i have said has been directly on point. i' responding directly to a point you made. i'll try to restate the point i was frying to make. >> wrap up, please. >> if our object here is to try to reduce the does of -- cost of health care, republicans believe we should directly target solutions to that. what's one of the big cost drivers? malpractice. we know that by one of the studies i cited $100 billion, $100 billion a year could be saved with good medical

malpractice reform. our amendments were ruled out of order trying to deal with that. and yet that is a targeted solution that would directly allow us to save money. which would of course make insurance less expensive and cost more affordable. so there's an example of a specific republican alternative. host: senator jon kyl on day 3 of the senate finance committee markup of the legislation. day five is today. they will continue their work on the legislation. we'll have live coverage of that here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern time, 7:00 a.m. on the west coast. fayetteville, north carolina, on the republican line. we are talking about the health care debate. what do you think so far? caller: i think there should be reform. i don't think the government should step in any more. i am a veteran and i see examples of it whenever i do go to the v.a. i'm in the v.a. system. and i need medicine for certain

things. and they'll tell me, it's bad for, you know, your liver or whatever. and then all of a you sudden they'll come back and say, no, actually, it's too expensive. we are just not going to give it to you when you know i need it. that's what it's going to come down to. and i was in the emergency room one night and there was one doctor for the entire hospital and that's what we are coming down to. if government takes over that's what we are coming down to. we don't need that. we just need reform. all this waste -- that's what we need to do. we don't need for the government to take over. and all this hatred and all this calling names and -- from the left side, we need -- they need to think the elections of 2010 are going to come up and all these people they are calling racist and calling all these bad

names, the people that are calling these names, the elections are coming up and they are going to remember this. thank you. host: joe, sounds like you want to see more bipartisanship, growcomprow mize. caller: that would be great. caller: birmingham, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. i want to say please let me finish my point. what i'm saying is this. why is these people calling them government, government, government takeover. you know what? i am so embarrassed at america that we do not have intellectual people that can read for themselves. the bible even tells you, study to show thy self approved. we need to get with it. we need to read stuff ourself and stop being led around by the nose with these ideas. i don't care if they are coming from the republican, blue dogs,

democrats, whoever you want to call yourselves. read for yourself to understand what's really going on. i live in alabama. we are not competitive here with the insurance industry. and as far as john kyl talking about malpractice. please, you are really looking at and find out -- did you see the doctor that implanted the wrong embryo in this woman and her and her husband had to go through. that's a very enduring pain for a person to go there. host: another story in congress daily this morning about bipartisanship. former lawmaker see need for accommodation in debate t says former representative lee am hamilton and former senator alan simpson fall the health care debate. lawmakers have forgotten how to legislate. the senators who proclaim they will never compromise on health care are totally ineffective. they think the word compromise

means william. they are not good legislators. they are tub-thumb percent and ribbon cutters, but they don't cut the mustard. next phone call, missouri, republican line, barbara. caller: good morning. i want you to know that i am totally, totally serious over two points. number one the boys and girls playing around in the house of representatives and the senate, i wonder if they know how stupid they look to us. we have simple answers to this knockdown lines between states and do tort reforms this year. the second thing i'm curious about is the fact that we've got military in afghanistan. we are doing nothing, we are sitting and twiddling our thumbs. i'm telling you right now, if one other boy is -- or girl is

killed in afghanistan before they get off their duffs and make a decision, i personally will sue. don't know who, but i will. i'm 75 years old and i'm sick of all of it. host: kristen with bloomberg has been covering this health care debate. she joins us this morning to help us with our conversation. host: why should our viewers watch out for blanch lincoln? >> she is one of the democrats who has been critical of the idea of a public option. her state is obviously a republican leaning state. she is worried about her re-leaks chances and also trying to represent the views of her constituents, which are a little more conservative than many of the democrats. so she's someone that is really going to be a swing vote not

only in the senate finance panel but also when it comes to the senate as a whole. i mentioned earlier there are 60 votes now that senator kennedy has been replaced. still, there aren't necessarily 60 united votes on the democratic side. the progressives really want a public option. some of the conservatives just don't. >> we'll leave this recorded portion of "washington journal" to take you live to the white house and today's press briefing with press secretary gibbs. >> mr. elliott. >> thanks, robert. on the principles meeting today, what's the actual goal? what does the president want to come away with this discussion about afghanistan? i know we are not at a point where we are making decisions,

but what are we making specifically? >> the meeting the president will be in has been rescheduled until tomorrow. the principals will meet to get ready, continue to get ready for that meeting as i understand it general petraeus and general mcchrystal will participate in the meeting. >> is this the first conversation the president has had with mcchrystal since receiving his report? >> i don't believe that they have spoken since the report has been given. understanding for a little context the president receives a memo every week from general mcchrystal. as he does from everyone else on an update on how things are going in either afghanistan or iraq respectively. inputs also come from the diplomatic side as well as into those memos the president meets as he is today regularly with

the chain of command, including the two top people in that chain of command, defense secretary bob gates, and joint chiefs chair admiral mullen, both of whom will be at the white house today. >> what's he looking for from this meeting? >> this is the beginning of reassessing where we are. i think this will be as we have said, this will take place over the course of several meetings in a number of weeks as we look at where we are. what's happened in the intervening months since the president made a decision in march. and i think as you heard the ally obviously in our mission, is to evaluate this from a strategic perspective and then have a discussion later about resources which is what the president intends to do. >> are the principles offering him options to consider?

>> i don't think we are at that point yet. i think we are going to go through the mcchrystal assessment and go through additional ideas and go from there. >> iran is saying they will not discuss this new nuclear plan tomorrow. >> they may not, but we will. >> i was going to ask you. you're going to bring it up. what do you think about this approach that they are taking? >> what is undeniable is that a plan -- a plant was constructed in violation of their obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. something they have signed with the iaea as well as u.n. security council resolutions. we will demand that iaea inspectors have unfettered access to the facility, to personnel, to documents surrounding the facility. there's no doubt this is in

violation of -- their own obligations to which they are a party. i think if -- i think it will be -- i think it will show the world and i think the onus is on the iranians to show the world that the program that they have is for -- is a peaceful program to create energy rather than a secret program for nuclear weapons. i think if the iranians are unwilling to discuss something that should have been reported to the iaea years ago, i think that's quite telling. but gedge gwen i don't want to -- but again i don't want to prejudge. i'll let them do their own talking. yes, sir. >> the president said in the oval officele with nato secretary-general said they defined the mission in afghanistan as dismantling, disrupting, destroying the al quidea network and effective-l working with the afghan government to provide the secure for that country. how would you define effectively

working with the afghan government to provide the security necessary for that country? can you explain more what he means? >> i think you've got -- i think as you have seen in places around the world we've -- while we can help the security environment in the short term, there has to be a training mission for police and security forces that that country can use to secure their own territory. because we cannot stay there forever. eventually the functions of security and the functions of policing are going to have to be assumed by the afghans. so obviously some robust training mission has to happen. >> that's what you mean by -- kind of open-ended concept of they need to be able to arm themselves. >> they have to be able to -- they have to be able to secure

their own physical territory. >> that's obviously not the case right now. >> then that's why -- that's part of what the president talked about in march and part of what is obviously in the assessment from general mcchrystal. >> one other question is, retired general grace is reported in "the washington post" today making comments about u.s. policy to include suggestions that his goal is to normalize relations with sudan and there are a lot of other comments that are alarmed groups, whose existence is to object to the genocide in darfur. did you guys have a reaction to that comment? >> my reaction is more to the story. the policy is being worked on. there are no announcements of a new policy. obviously our policy would not include that unless there were significant change on the ground in khartoum. >> is there a changer with the

president that he may be perceived as weak and decisive as this policy or strategic -- strategy review session drags on, fueled by the procession that many in his own party are against increasing the number of troops in the war? >> when you say drags on, secretary gates said this weekend it took three months in the previous white house to discuss a policy on a surge of troops in iraq. did anybody -- was there a suggestion by those then that the president was dragging this assessment on? >> you-all have made a point of saying there is no time limit on this. >> right. because the president wants to get the policy right. if the policy takes time to get right, then that's what the president intends to do. i think he owes that to the men and women in uniform that are there. he owe that is to the men and women in uniform that could go. and he owes that to each and every american. >> meanwhile, there's probably

what you could describe accurately as a rising tide of sentiment against further engagement in afghanistan. >> well -- >> a bunch of it is in his own party. >> the president isn't going to make a political decision. the president will make a decision he feels is in the best interest of the united states national security. the president is happy to hear the back and forth from both sides on this. but it's going to take his time to decide what is right for the american people. >> when you talk about the president wants to get the back and forth, where does it stand now? is it the sense the president does not want to stand anymore troops but he needs to see the evidence and wants to be convinced there is a need for that? >> the president is in the process of doing actsly what he said he would do after the elections and that is assess where we are. -- exactly what he said he would do after the elections and that

is to assess where we are. general mcchrystal has been there for a couple months, saw through his assessment on the ground the situation had deteriorated more rapidly than people had expected. you have the am big gute -- ambiguity of the afghan election, all of which has to be taken into account. the president simply taking this into account and demonstrating again as i said what he would do in march in assessing this polcy. >> as he does that, what are his concerns about sending in more troops? >> well, i have not heard him talk specifically and i wouldn't get into if i had, what his concerns are right now. i think obviously the president wants to ensure that we have a well-defined mission. that we all understand that we can't be there forever. as jake mentioned, the president reiterated the strategy -- we

have to have a strategy that dismantles, disrupts, and destroys al qaeda. and its extremist allies. builds up the security police enforces of the afghans. and doesn't allow safe havens in afghanistan where terrorists can plot again to blow up buildings or planes in this country. >> does the united states believe iran was trying -- is trying to acquire nuclear weapons? >> i think that there is -- their reticence now for a second time to live up to its international obligations puts the onus on the iranians to

demonstrate for the world that their program that -- that they have a peaceful nuclear program designed for power and energy rather than a program to develop nuclear weapons. that is is question that only the iranians can answer to the satisfy nature of the world community. >> the u.s. government isn't -- >> i'm not going to get into -- i'm not going to get into discussing intelligence here. >> on the iaea does the u.s. government believe they have gotten enough information that they need pra them about what they have done in iran previously? they have gotten full cooperation from the iaea, the u.s. government, in getting everything they need? >> i have to check with somebody as to the exact nature. again, the onus is on the identify rainsans -- iranians to provide full unfettered access to documents, to live up to the

international obligation that is they have signed. this facility should have been reported to the iaea at a point in which a decision was made to begin constructing, right. that has long since passed. the iranians are going to get a chance to account for the world and be transparent about their program and its intent. >> the news that the swiss government is going to -- the iranians are going to give the swiss government access to the hikers. is it viewed within talks are going to take place in geneva? an attempt by them -- >> you are -- our government has always viewed that the hikers should be released. and we don't conflict the two issues. there isn't any connection. there shouldn't be. the hikers should be released.

>> the president when he said today in the oval office, we will stay in afghanistan as long as it takes. >> obviously i'm not going to get into parsing the words -- >> it's pretty straightforward. >> i couldn't currently hold the position of his spokesperson. >> does the president a-- agree with that? >> i think the president believes we have to, as i said earlier, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy al quidea -- al qaeda. present it from having a safe haven that would allow it to plan the type of activities that we saw happen in september of 2001 in this country. >> that is the objective for which the u.s. will stay in afghanistan as long as it takes? >> that is the objective of our u.s. policy toward afghanistan. >> back to iran in terms of sanctions. there's been reporting on

insurance, targeting insurance and reinsurance. what else is the administration considering? >> i'm not going to get into what happens a few steps down the road except i think you have heard the president be very forceful about what the iranians could face in the event that they don't live up to their obligations. our focus right now is on thursday's meeting and hoping that they will live up to those obligations and tell the world. >> the administration is considering sanctions? you guys are working on this? this isn't premature talk? >> no, we are working on it. it's just me talking about it is premature. >> could you talk to us generally about targeted sanctions? >> i hate to get into conjecture. obviously i think what is most important in any step that is taken next in the event that the iranians don't live up to their

obligations is that we do this with the entire international community working together. i think we are at a point through the president's policy of engagement where we are not having a debate about whether or not we should be confronting the iranians face to face. but instead we put the bonus on the iranians to discuss their intentions and their program with the world. and we've brought our allies, up to a point which that is all possible. >> the deputy foreign minister says iran's missile tests shouldn't be used to generate international support for sanctions. do you agree with that? >> i just said yesterday the -- obviously though the exercises by the iranians were part of preplanned military activities, i don't think anybody thought

that that was a helpful thing heading into serious talks where the onus and responsibility is on them. >> also criticized the decision to go forward with the talks. he says -- >> we tried that. we had that policy for six years. it resulted in a whole lot of nothing. the president through engagement is at a point in which we are about to confront face to face on behalf of the world the intention of the iranians and their nuclear program and we'll give them opportunity to state for the world and to demonstrate through its actions not just its words its responsibilities. i think we could go back to what we had for six years which i think amounted to exceedingly little progress in dealing with the iranians after it was -- almost seven years after it was known that they had built a

massive ukrainian enrichment plan. >> what is the one going sudan you would like to be completed? >> i know there's a principal committees meeting today that many will be at. i assume they'll come to some serious -- series of recommendations that will be presented ultimately to the president. >> i don't think he's participating in the principals committee meeting. >> will he be consulted on this? a -- >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> will he be cleared into the white house compound today at all? >> not that i'm aware of. now we have veered from iran to u-2. one more. go ahead, get it out. let's go ahead. i'm sorry. tonight's play list.

the -- the principals committee will meet. they'll eventually have recommendations for the president as part of an ongoing review of our sudan policy and when we have a policy to announce, we will. >> any approximation -- >> not that i have been given. >> tomorrow's afghanistan meeting. who will be in the meeting with the president? >> let me see if i could do some of this off 6 top of my head. we'll get awe more complete list for those that actually attend the meeting. i know that the vice president will be there. the secretary of state will be there. secretary of defense will be there. the chair of the joint chiefs will be there. ambassador holbrook will be there. general petraeus and general mcchrystal. i'm not sure if one or both of those is by teleconference. we'll certainly get that. i'm trying to think if i left

anybody out. i'm sorry, of course general jones will be there. general luger. >> you mentioned the memos that the president gets every week from general mcchrystal. is there a reason why the president hasn't spoken with general mcchrystal except for the one time? president bush spoke to his commanders every week. >> i think the president receives tremendous input from the commanders on the ground. receives input from regional commanders like general petraeus at central. talks and meets weekly with, as i said, the chair of the joint chiefs. or the vice chair if admiral mullen is traveling. and meets weekly with the head of that chain of command,

secretary gates, often. >> how does the president view general mcchrystal this morning, arguably the general put in a political box. >> the president is intent on getting the decision that has to be made right. focusing our effort and resources on ensuring we have the best strategy possible. understand, peter, that the president signed off on putting general mcchrystal where he is. >> going to health care. the finance committee meeting today. where we are question. are they going to be having votes today and obviously through the week, are you expecting -- a, are you expecting a finished product soon in the next few days? is that going to be the key that blocks things? >> i think obviously whether it

is the end of this week or whether this leads into next week i can't say for sure. i know the finance committee is making progress going through a series of amendments. but i expect in the next few days that the finance committee will finish its work. at that point you'll have five different committees that will have -- all of whom have some series of jurisdiction over -- purview over health care. obviously both sides will then have to reconcile different proposals before they go to the floor fairly quickly. >> i guess what i'm getting at, you have been putting a lot of emphasis on the finance committee in the last few weeks. is that going to be the definitive version of the legislation? >> again, i think just on the senate side obviously there is the process of the finance committee that will have to be reconciled with the health committee bill that passed out earlier this summer. that process will merge -- those legislation -- that legislation

together just as the committees in the house will merge their bill together. then it will go through. >> it's just incremental. you spoke of it yesterday being in a better place. which sounded definitive. >> i think the finance committee is in a better place. they are going through -- i was asked this question in relation what the president said about the olympics several weeks ago. at that point we didn't have a chairman's mark. we didn't have a committee that was meeting. we didn't have amendments that were being debated. we didn't have votes taking place. obviously all of that happening with the last committee of jurisdiction means we are making progress on health care. >> last week everybody, they anticipate a bill before the recess. out of the house and senate or conference? >> i have to check. because we were on the road so much last week i have not talked with rahm or peter on their

statements. i think it's our hope that this is a process that can be wrapped up by then. >> on iran. from a technical standpoint can we talk a little bit more about what the u.s. position is going into geneva. are we going to be on our own or in conjunction with any of our allies presenting on paper sort of specific demands or proposals for iran? or will it be more of a verbal -- how long is the u.s. prepared to let the talks go on if one meeting doesn't cut it? >> i would hesitate to prejudge the second question. in terms of the first, i think this is a lot less about what we in the p-5 plus one have to do. this is about what the iranians have to do. even before friday's acknowledgement by the iranians several years belatedly that they had a facility, there is a

pending question about their nuclear program. that program, that question only got more important with friday's disclosure and the onus and responsibility are clearly on them. >> from the standpoint of leverage how do you crowd them -- >> "saturday night live" where it's entered into the lexicon. the onus is on iran but how does the u.s. approach that? will there be something on paper that's given to the iranians? >> let me check on the protocol of whether that's -- whether something -- i know that bill burns, who has worked on this issue for quite some time and is

part of the meeting i think it was last june or july that occurred in the previous administration in the p-5 plus one with iran will be in charge of it for the united states. >> on the olympics, the president's going to be meeting privately with some i.o.c. members in copenhagen. what will his message be? will he make the case for chicago? >> absolutely. i think the president again sees the opportunity to push strongly on the international stage america's bid for the eolympics. he will obviously have a part in the chicago presentation. but i think believes that it's important for him to talk with the voting members of the i.o.c. and make a strong case for the

american side. >> in response to the chairman's criticism about the president going to compone haigen? >> who is he rooting for? was he hoping to hop the plane to brazil and catching the olympics in rio? maybe it's madrid. >> why is the president leaving before the decision is announced. why doesn't he stick around for a couple hours? >> to get back to do more work. >> on iran. how important if sanctions are required would cooperation of the rush jans and chinese be? can you talk about what your level of confidence is that they'll be with the united states on this? >> i wouldn't get -- in all honesty a lot more ahead of what you heard, principle, president med have a dead say last week after meeting with the -- medvaded say last week after meeting with the president. we hope iran fulfills its

obligation and responsibility f it doesn't we'll look at next steps. i think what he said is timely >> two questions. one, on iran, how does gasoline factor into these conversations? >> i'm not going to get into that. aim not going to get ahead of getting into surmised specifics about sanctions. >> but is gasoline something this administration could be part -- could it be one of the options on the table? >> see previous answer. >> ok. >> or call tommy. >> next question. the u.s. census bureau came out with a new study saying household income declined across all groups. but charper percentage for middle income and the poor. the middle income america is the group that really is affecting

these polls, the president's approval ratings. could you talk to me about how this white house sees that? >> talk about how -- >> white house sees the report as middle income americans are the ones who really affect the approval ratings of the president up or down? >> i got to tell you, there's not a lot of time spent correlating census bureau income data with approval rating polling data. we are focused on getting a policy right to turn the economy around. obviously the president -- we saw a little more than a year ago an economic catastrophe that had been building for quite some time with millions of jobs lost. that obviously has affected household income. it's not something we spend a lot of time -- >> some pollsters say it is directly linged, the middle

income pocketbook is directly linged. your approval ratings will go up or down if they see the savings -- >> i'll let pollsters smarter than me address that. >> when you talk about afghanistan, the one thing i don't hear in the strategy is defeat of the taliban. is that something we must do? >> when i talk about al qaeda and its extremist allies that's what we are talking about. >> as far as the middle class issue it's been recently reported that more and more middle income people are reporting to public clinics. they have lost their jobs and insurance. $38 billion. i just wonder if does the administration in any way see this as another option to -- public option? you got clinic staff that are on salary. they don't really practice defensive medicine. >> i think what you're pointing out with the drop of income, we

have seen an increase in the number of uninsured based on where the economy's going, the best way to deal with that problem is bring the cost of health care down. and provide an accessible and affordable route for those that don't currently have health care or have lost their health care. to purchase something more stable so that they don't like millions of americans go bankrupt if they get sick. i think that's what underpins the president's entire push for compreff -- comprehensive health care reform. >> with the focus on iran this week and the g-20, is the white house losing control of its health care message? >> no. >> let me ask another health care question. progressive policy advocates are complaining that the white house is not working with them to develop what would be a strong

trigger. they see olympia snowe's trigger and her plan as being weak then complaining there is nothing coming from the white house on an alternative trigger that would be stronger, robust, that might be a compromise position with house democrats. >> david, i have to admit i haven't seen that. i will go ask nancy-ann and others about that. obviously i think you have heard the president on any number of occasions discuss the strong need for choice and competition. robustly to be in this bill. that without it we are not going to have what needs to happen to bring down health care costs and provide accessibility. i haven't seen that yet. >> with the white house weighing in on state elections in colorado, virginia, and new york is there going to be a lot more of this as 2010 gets closer?

is this going to be a standard procedure for the white house to get involved in local races? >> well, when you say local races, you mean -- >> congressional. >> i think the president will be an active participant in the elections in 2010. i don't think there's any doubt about that. >> how significant is the white house going to be in these elections? >> i think we have a significant interest in how they turn out. i think the president will put -- we have a long way before that, put the best case forward in 2010, and support candidates that share his vision for long-term sustainable economic growth. >> over the weekend former president clinton came out for support, he called the previous

position against it untenable. what is the president -- what does the president think about that? >> i have not talked to him. i did not see the -- president clinton's comments and i haven't talked to him about it. >> on the afghan and iran, there is a question that's been floating around since the vietnam war. if a significant majority of the american people continue as they say, they are opposed to the buildup in afghanistan, is the president obligated to go with the american people or on his own? >> i have talked about this a little in the past. i think the president clearly will make a decision he believes is in the best interest of the national security of this country. at a point in which a final decision gets made, heal explain directly to the -- he'll explain directly to the american people why he thinks it's the best decision. >> republican opinion polls don't play -- >> no. >> strong statement you made on behalf of the world, do you

include military confrontation? >> i think the president and secretary gates both said it would be a mistake to take any option off the table. >> sorry if i'm late to the game on this, but is the white house concerned at all about the scaling back about the proposed consumer protection agency? what kind of steps is the administration willing to take to make sure it's kept intact? >> this is a big concern on the president. it's a big concern of the administration. i think we have seen what happens whether it's credit card companies, mortgage companies, we now see it more in stories covering the charges for bank overdrafts. and the amount of money that that costs. the american people each other. the american people deserve an advocate on their behalf dealing with these entities. the president believes that strongly. and believes that in the end of the day we'll have a strong

consumer finance protection agency working on behalf of the american people. >> is he willing not to sign a bill if he thinks it's too weak? >> the president would not sign any bill he thought was too weak. >> on the defense spending bill now before the senate, do you feel like that's free enough of earmarks? >> i know that some of the most egregious spending on behalf of the administration was and is addressed. we have talked in here about the f-22. we have talked about the alternative engine program for the f-35. we have talked about a series of presidential helicopters that the president did not believe was necessary and we want to see that -- most of all addressed in this bill. i have not talked specifically to the legislative affairs about the other stuff. >> consumer financial protection

agency -- >> the president will fight for and fight against anybody in the special interests who don't see it as an important part of financial regulatory reform. >> will he veto a bill that doesn't include it? >> we are confident it will be in a final bill he's able to sign. >> about the defense authorization -- if you guys see too many earmarks, will you veto that? >> i have to ask legislative affairs. the largest earmarks we wanted to be addressed, the presidential help earn the two airplanes are first and foremost on our mind. thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the u.s. house returns at 2:00 eastern today when members begin legislative work. on the agenda several bills

including one that establishes the u.s. civil rights trails system. we expect votes on the bills later today. also this week a measure that authorizes $1.5 billion for five years to aid pakistan. and possible debate on several conference reports. live coverage of the u.s. house today at 2:00 eastern. just over 10 minutes from now when members gavel back in. earlier today at the white house, president obama met with the new nato secretary-general who took office last summer. he's former danish prime minister rasmussen. the two spoke with reporters jf wards for just under 10 minutes. >> hello, everybody. i just want to welcome secretary-general rasmussen to the oval office. he and i had the opportunity to get to know each other at the nato summit in straussburg. at which he was nominated and then selected as the new secretary-general of nato.

i can say that given his experience as a head of state that everybody had confidence in his decisive and effective leadership abilities. that confidence has proven justified in the previous time that he's been at nato. i think he's already shown himself ton an active and effective -- himself to be an active and effective secretary-general in renewing the nato alliance and always rooted in the understanding that this is the most successful military alliance in history. and the cornerstone of transatlantic relationships. we had a very fruitful discussion while he was here. we talked about obviously the most important nato mission right now and that is afghanistan. we both agree that it is absolutely critical that we are

successful in dismantling, disrupting, destroying the al qaeda network. and that we are effectively working with the afghan government to provide the security necessary for that country. this is not an american battle. this is a nato mission as well and we are working actively and diligently to consult with nato at every step of the way. i'm very grateful for the leadership that secretary-general rasmussen has shown in committing nato to a full partnership in this process. we also discussed missile defense, and we both agreed that the configuration that we have proposed is one that ultimately

will serve the interests of not only the united states but also nato alliance members, most effectively. it allows for a full collaboration with nato members. and we are very optimistic that it will achieve our aims. and deal with the very real threat of ballistic missiles. we also agree that it is important for us to reach out to russia and explore ways in which the missile defense configurations that we envision could potentially lead to further collaboration with russia on this front. and that we want to improve generally not only u.s.-russian relations but also nato-russian

relations while making absolutely clear that our commitments to all of our allies in nato is sacrosanct and that our commitment to article 5 continues. finally, we discussed the process that we are putting forward for a strategic concept review. nato has been so successful that sometimes i think that we forget this was shaped and crafted for a 20th century landscape. we are now well into the 21st century. and that means that we are going to have to constantly renew and revitalize nato to meet current threats. and not just past threats. there has been a process that has been put forward. we are fully supportive of it.

i am confident that secretary-general rasmussen's leadership will ultimately be successful and that we'll continue to see nato operate in a way that is good for u.s. national security interests, good for our allies, and good for the world. so, mr. secretary-general, thank you for the excellent work you are doing. we appreciate it very much. and please feel free to share a few words. >> thank you very much, mr. president, for your kind words. the president and i have had some very constructive meeting. i have thanked the president for his strong support. i look very much forward to cooperating with the president and his administration on reforming, transforming, and modernizing nato. we are going to elaborate a new strategic concept which i hope

can serve as a learning for renewal of nato. of course our main focus today has been our operation in afghanistan. i say our focus deliberately because our operation in afghanistan is not america's responsibility or burden alone, it is and it will remain a team effort. i agree with president obama in his approach -- strategy first and then resources. the first thing is not numbers. it is to find and fine-tune the right approach to implement the strategy already laid down, and all nato allies are right now looking at mcchrystal's review.

i'm convinced that success in afghanistan is achievable and will be achieved. and don't make any mistake, the normal discussion on the right approach should not be misinterpreted as lack of resolve. this alliance will stand united and we will stay in afghanistan as long as it takes to finish our job. as the president mentioned, we have also discussed missile defense. i welcome the new u.s. approach which will allow all allies to participate, which will protect all allies. and in fact, i think, the proposed new system can serve as

an i.n.s. rumet -- instrument to our allies new and old even stronger together. >> thank you so much. thank you, everybody. >> the house is back in just under five minutes. at 2:00 eastern today. members beginning legislative work on the agenda today. a number of bills including one establishing the u.s. civil rights trail system. votes coming up at 6:30 p.m. eastern. also coming this week a measure that authorizes $1.5 billion for five years to aid pakistan. and possible debate on several conference reports also coming up this week. live coverage of the house in just a few minutes. 2:00 eastern time when members gavel back in. while we wait, we get a look at the supreme court, members posing for photos earlier today. the nine justices, including new associate justice, sonia sotomayor.

>> c-span supreme court week is just a week away. featuring personal interviews with each of the currently serving and retired supreme court justices. get an insider's view of the people and places, that make up the nation's highest court. >> why is it that we have an elegant, astonishingly beautiful, imposing structure? it's to remind us that we have

an important function. and to remind the public when it sees the building of the importance and the centrality of the law. >> supreme court week starts sunday, october 4, on c-span. and to complement our original production, c-span office teachers free resources on the judicial system at c-spanclassroom.org. >> c-span's 2010 student cam contest shear. $50,000 in prizes for middle and high school students, top prize $5,000. just create a five to eight-minute video on one of our country's greatest strength or challenge the country is facing. it must incorporate c-span programming and show varying points of view. deadline, january 20. winning entries will be shown on c-span. grab a camera and get started. >> this saturday, the meaning of matthew, my son's murder in laramie and a world transformed.

following a taped event from salt lake city, judy shep shepard, the mother of matthew shepard, will take your calls live in our studio. sunday, three ours in depth with townhall.com blogger, hugh hewitt, he's the author of 12 books. including his new one, "republican renewal under president obama." live this weekends on c-span2's book tv. the u.s. house about to return now for legislative business. on the agenda today a number of bills, including one that would establish the u.s. civil rights trail system. no votes until 6:30 eastern today. also coming up this week in the u.s. house, a measure that would authorize $1.5 billion for five years to aid pakistan. also possible debate on several conference reports coming this week. live coverage of the u.s. house now here on c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: you have said if today you hear the voices of the lord, hardened not your hearts, once the heart is deadened by indifference to your word or to the cry of a need, where to we find ourselves? alone and cold. how are we to find happiness? only love can help the hardened hearts. when love has run its course or unfaithful love stabs betrayal, in the stillness, lord, quiet

memory brings us back to you. we are born out of love and have searched for its fulfillment all lifelong. moments of true love once found in truth and duty fall into place. your grace, then, steps through the open cracks and we have come to know by heart i am with you now and forever. amen. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the the gentlewoman from arizona, congresswoman kirkpatrick. mrs. kirkpatrick: members and guests in the gallery please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena for deposition testimony issued by the district court of caldwell state of north carolina in connection with a case -- civil case now pending in the same court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 8. signed, sincerely, patrick t. mchenry, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3607, an act to

amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund to amend title 49 united statesp code to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona rise? mrs. kirkpatrick: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mrs. kirkpatrick: mr. speaker, i first wantp to welcome two people from my district who are in the house gallery today. ken and theresa lamont from cottonwood, arizona. welcome to the house. the time is now to develop a plan for the united states to return to balance budget and pay down our national debt. yet, these are difficult decisions to make. however the focus in my

district and across the country are tightening their belts and doing more with less. it is a time for congress to work with the federal reserve and the treasury to develop plans to do the same before it is too late. we must take this work seriously and remain committed. our country, our security, and our future depend on it. i ask that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle join me in this effort. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. mr. speaker, we have 44 czars in america and the dance card keeps growing. the new czar for the day is the safe school czar. add that to the aid czar, auto recovery czar, behave yorble science czar, border czar, car czar, climate change czar, copyright czar, counterterrorism czar, cybersecurity czar, diversity

czar, disinformation czar, two economic czars, an education czar, energy czar, food czar, government performance czar, great lakes czar, gtmo closure czar, health care czar, infotech czar, intelligence czar, latin american czar, middle east peace czar, mideast policy czar, and pay czar, regulatory czar, religion or god czar, science czar, stimulus czar, sudan czar, tarp czar, technology czar, trade czar, urban affairs czar, war czar, water czar, weapons czar, and now we have a safe school czar. who are these people? and what do they do? is this a shadow government? since we continue to dance with the czars, it would be nice to know who brought us to the dance. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor keith

moreriesons -- morrison as an angel of adoption. keith is very deserving of this honor and recognition because of his work and dedication to finding children from around the world permanent families. working as an alternative since -- attorney since 1984 he's represented hundreds of families throughout the united states both in domestic and international adoptions. he also regularly represents private adoption agencies. he continues his work beyond the walls ever his office. helping start church adoption ministries and raising funds to support families with adoption related expenses. he also regularly counsels others who are considering beginning or working their way through the adoption process. finally he and his wife have found fulfillment in adoption adopting both domestically and internationally. i commend him for his leadership and selfless service to unite children with loving families. i'm proud to recognize his efforts and accomplishments. i ask my colleagues today to join with me in honoring keith

and the other angels who are working to create a better life for children all around the world. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the national media don't have a credibility problem. they have a credibility void. five out of six americans see the national news media as very or somewhat biased, according to a new poll by sacred heart university. six out of seven americans say the media had their own political and public policy positions in attempt to influence opinion and policy. nearly nine out of 10 americans say the media played a strong role in electing barack obama as president. seven in 10 says the national media are intent on promoting

the obama presidency. and a majority say the media are promoting the white house's health care plan without criticism. the poll found that bias reporting is driving away the media's audience. almost half of americans have stopped watching a news outlet because of media bias. if the national media want to keep their remaining audience, they need to restore american's trust by giving them the facts not telling them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote on the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today.

for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 685 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 685, a bill to require a study of the feasibility of establishing the united states civil rights trail system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, we must never forget the struggle for racial equality that spanned our nation in the 1950's and 1960's.

more the people who -- nor the people who waged that fight to be object stain basic civil rights for all americans. the many sites linked to the civil rights movement together tell the story of how a profoundly transformed our history. h.r. 685 as amended authorizes the national park service to complete a special resource study to analyze alternatives and make recommendations for the preservation and interpretation of these mull tipple -- multiple sites including a possible national civil rights trail, linking the sites with common maps, signs, and educational materials. mr. speaker, we commend our distinguished colleague, representative william lacy clay, for his vision and dedication to this legislation. we support passage of h.r. 685 and urge its adoption by the house today. and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from virginia. million wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 685 has been adequately explained by chairwoman bordallo and we thank for that effort. we support the legislation with the understanding that the original intent of the bill is being preserved. the national park service proposed changes that would have prevented the program from focusing on the history of the movement to overcome slavery and racial discrimination. instead would have been directed to include other political causes. we appreciate that change. we agree with the intent of the bill's sponsor, mr. clay, that the trail system tell the story of a struggle for civil rights based on racial equality. mr. clay, thank you for your leadership and efforts on those lines and bringing this bill forward. mr. speaker, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman, the author of this swlagse, from missouri, mr. clay, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, mr. speaker, let me thank the chairwoman, ms. bordallo, as well as the ranking member, mr. wittman, for their assistance on this legislation. as the sponsor of this legislation along with congressman zach wamp of tennessee, i am pleased to present h.r. 685 for consideration by the house today. i also want to thank my good friend, chairman of the subcommittee on national parks, forests, and public lands, raul grijalva, for a guiding this legislation through the committee process.

this legislation will fully recognize the remarkable american story of the struggle for civil rights. that ongoing journey stretches across three centuries, through multiple generations, and touches every american. the united states civil rights trail system act of 2009 would recognize those brave souls who fought to make the promises inscribed in our constitution ring true. in many case places across this nation, and for far too long, that story is still incomplete and remains largely untold. h.r. 685 would authorize a study by the secretary of the interior to determine the feasibility of establishing a

national trail system marking the geographic location of historically significant events related to the fight for racial equality in the united states. the american civil rights movement challenged the practice of racial segregation in the nation and achieved equal rights for all american citizens. . it's my hope that the united states civil rights trail will tell the sometimes painful story of the struggle for civil rights. the knowledge and understanding gained from the trails will provide this generation and those who follow us with tremendous educational opportunities. and i also let me close by urging all of our colleagues to support the bill and, mr.

speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i'd inquire from the majority party if they have additional speakers. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority whether they have any further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo:. -- ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 685, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are

suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2442, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2442, a bill to amend the reclamation wastewater and groundwater study and facilities act to expand the bay area regional water recycling program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on

the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 2442, introduced by our colleague, representative george miller of california, would authorize six projects as part of the bay area regional water recycling program. when completed, these projects are expected to create up to 14,470 acre-feet of recycled water. at a time, mr. speaker, when important water -- when imported water is unreliable, the title 16 water recycling program is a tool that communities can use to create a reliable, local supply to meet future demands for both northern and southern california and across the west. so i ask my colleagues to support passage of this very important legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time.

the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, the chairwoman has adequately described the legislation. as my colleagues know, areas throughout the west are experiencing different drought. communities are faced with overcoming long-term water shortages as a result. and some communities have built water storage reservoirs while some have sought water recycling. this bill will help construct water recycling facilities. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i'd inquire if the majority party has any additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i

have no further speakers at this time, and i wish to ask the minority if they have any further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, the minority has no further speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from gaumgaum ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2442, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. wittman: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those if favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20

and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2950, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2950, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the united states and the uintah water conservancy district. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 2950, as amended, would allow a water district in central utah to pay off the debt it owes to the federal government early. the bill, sponsored by congressman jim matheson of utah, has broad bipartisan support. so i ask my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, today i rise in support of this legislation. this bill would allow the uintah water conservatory district to prepay its contractual commitment to the u.s. treasury. this prepayment will bring much-needed funds to the federal treasury over a 10-year period. unfortunately, the current federal law does not allow most water districts with federal water contracts to prepay their

balances. this is similar to prohibiting a homeowner from prepaying a mortgage loan. congress must enact a law each time a water district wants to prepay its balance on a bureau of reclamation project. for this reason, water and power subcommittee ranking member mcclintock said he would allow more water districts to prepay their contracts without congressional approval. that would mean that water districts are not saddled with longer term debt and taxpayers will benefit. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson, the author of this legislation, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. matheson: well, thank you, mr. speaker. i'd really like to thank chairman rahall for moving this bill so quickly, and folks on both sides of the aisle, the resources committee have been very helpful in moving this bill.

as was discussed, this will allow the uintah water conservatory to better use its resources by prepaying its debt to the federal government. rural counties in utah, the second most arid state in the nation, have a significant need for water and it's only increased over time. the water in uintah county is used by irgators and manufacturing industries. this bill will move us towards a greater assurance of the development of water supplies in that part of our state. i just point out, the uintah water conservatory district has been around for a long time. the debt that the county would like to prepay subject to this legislation was incurred to construct a water project that is part of the original central utah project. now, the district has always made its payments on time, but we have a circumstance now where its capability and its financing create a situation where it makes economic sense for us to prepay the debt.

interestingly enough, the c.b.o. scores this as a positive to the federal government as well. so this was a classic win-wish where a local water conservatory district can prepay its debt and do right by its constituents and have a positive score from the c.b.o. as was mentioned, the bill has broad bipartisan support. i do want to thank both sides of the aisle on the resources committee for helping with this. as jatcht virginia mentioned, its unfortunate that we have to do a bill every time to allow for the type of prepayment. this is pretty common sense and the decision in the private sector gets made all the time. i'd encouraged the effort to come up with a broader piece of legislation to look at this issue in a more expansive way. i encourage passage of the bill. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests of time and would inquire from the minority whether they have additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers and we'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i'd ask members to support this very important piece of legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2950, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the bill is suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i

move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3123, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3123, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior, acting through the bureau of reclamation, to remedy problems caused by a collapsed drainage tunnel in leadville, colorado, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 3123, introduced by our colleague, representative doug lamborn, would direct the bureau of reclamation to remedy problems caused by collapses in the leadville mine drainage tunnel. due to structural

deterioration, contaminated water has backed up in the tunnel posing a public health threat and environmental threat. i ask my colleagues to support the bill's passage, and i reserve the balance of my time. the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this legislation offered by our colorado colleague, doug lamborn. this bill has been supported on a bipartisan basis. this will prevent a human safety catastrophe in leadville, colorado. it has become a public danger because of chemical-laden water. since the federal government owns the tunnel it is therefore

a federal responsibility. i urge my colleagues to support this necessary legislation, which fell victim to party politics earlier this year, and, mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, the leadville mine drainage tunnel was used to facilitate extraction of zink ore. the bure of reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959 hoping to use it as a source of water for the frying pan arkansas project. with the passage of subsequent signing into law of h.r. 429 during the 102nd congress in 1992, the bure of reclamation constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel. this treatment plant removes metal contaminants from the

water. groundwater levels at the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years. in addition, a collapse in the tunnel has increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly leading to new seep and springs in the area. estimates suggest that at up to one time one billion gallons of water may have accumulated. emergency measures have currently being undertaken by the environmental protection agency and the bureau of reclamation to relieve water pressure in the vicinity. however, legislation attempting to address this matter and authorizing the secretary of interior to rehabilitate this tunnel dates back to at least 1976. in response to the request for action from the local community, i have begin worked together with senator mark udall of colorado in a bipartisan manner and reintroduced h.r. 3123. this bill would direct the bureau of reclamation to relieve water pressure behind blockages in the tunnel, permanently manage the mine

pool behind any blockage to prevent releases of contaminated water, and managed the tunnel in such a way to prevent failure of the structure. . only minor changes have been made since the bill was originally passed in the house of representatives in the previous congress. i respectfully request each member to support this legislation. human safety and environmental integrity need to be appropriately and responsibly addressed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, the minority has no additional speakers. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

ms. bordallo: i again urge members to support this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3123 , as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, andp without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 905 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 905, a bill to expand the boundaries of the thunder bay national marine sanctuary and underwater preserve, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizing the gentlewoman from guam.

ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, the thunder bay national marine sanctuary and underwater preserve is the only national marine sanctuary located in the great lakes. the sanctuary provides protection for more than 100 nationally significant historic ship wrecks in an area of lake huron, known as shipwreck alley. but an equal number lie immediately north and south of the existing sanctuary boundary. the pending measure would extend the sanctuary's boundary to encompass more than 100 additional ship wrecks and submerged resources and afford to these historic resources the protections, research, education, and public outreach

capabilities of the national marines sanctuary act. this bipartisan legislation introduced by our colleague, representative bart stupak of michigan, is strongly supported by the administration, the state of michigan, the effective -- affected counties, communities, local chambers of commerce, and the thunder bay sanctuary advisory council. i ask members on both sides of the aisle to support its passage. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the jalm reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. according to testimony on h.r. 905 the thunder bay national marine sanctuary and underwater preserve boundary modification act, there appears to be broad local support for this expansion. in addition, the legislation does not include any new statutory prohibitions which would prohibit or restrict activities within the

sanctuary. however there have been concerns voiced on this side of the aisle about the potential increased cost of this boundary expansion that expands the current sanctuary by almost nine times its current size. while the thunder bay national marine sanctuary is entirely in the waters of michigan, concern has been raised that the cost of this expansion and future needs will fall on the federal government. not only will the increase in the federal cost for managing the resource that is are entirely within state waters, but it could also have a negative effect on other national marine sang two which areries w that, though, mr. speaker, we do thank mr. stupak for his efforts in preserving national marine sanctuaries. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak, the author of this legislation such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stupak: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. i introduced h.r. 905, thunder

bay national marine sanctuary and underwater preserve boundary modification act to expand the bound chris of -- boundaries of this preserve. i want to thank my bill's co-sponsors, my michigan colleagues, their support has been instrumental in moving this legislation. in 1975 michigan state university in response to local interest collected an inventory of ship wrecks located within lake huron's thunder bay. what they found was thunder bay potentially contained the largest number of ship wrecks in the country. this discovery warranted establishment of an underwater reserve and in 1981 the state of michigan declared thunder bay michigan's first great lakes bottom land preserve. following this recognition, the national oceanic and sfeartic administration designated the sanctuary in 2000 making it the first in the great lakes. the sanctuary is a federal-state partnership with unique focus on preserving the large collection of underwater

cultural resources. these resources consist of more than 100 ship wrecks spanning more than 200 years of great lake shipping history. in order to study and preserve the cultural resources, 2005 national oceanic and spheric administration, and the state of michigan, established the great lakes maritime heritage center in michigan. the great lakes maritime heritage center allows visitors to learn about the great lakes maritime history, explore ship wrecks via live video feeds, and see how archaeologists continue to preserve these sites. to continue this positive outcome, the thunder bay sanctuary advisory council, a 15-member group representing local interests, local governments, all have passed a resolution commending or recommending the sanctuary be expanded. this legislation is supported by the state of michigan and the local chambers of commerce of each county that is affected. it would extend the boundaries

to include prsfield counties and alpina and extend the sanctuary east to the boundary with can in a in a da. currently it covers $4,448 -- 448 square miles. h.r. 905 would increase this area to 3,722 square miles of water, 226 miles of shoreline, adding an additional 180 ship wrecks to the sanctuary. in addition, the legislation would produce updated charts of the newly designated areas and apply to protection and preservation programs in the existing management plan. while authorizing an expansion of thunder bay sanctuary, the affected communities would receive the advantage of having the additional resources high lighted and increased tourism which is an important driver for economic growth in this part of northeastern michigan. i urge my colleagues to support my legislation. i yield back. i thank the ranking chairwoman

-- chairperson and the ranking member for their help and support on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i would inquire if the majority party has any additional speakers. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers. i inquire if the minority has any additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, we have no additional speakers. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i again urge members to support this important bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remainder of time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 905 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended--for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking

this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1771, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1771 a bill to re-authorize the chesapeake bay office of the national eeshianic and spheric administration, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, the chesapeake bay office of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration has taken bold steps to meet the bay's emerging challenges with ecosystem-based science, new coastal management techniques, and an effective environmental literacy program. however these new priorities are not reflected in the office's existing authorizing statute. the pending measure introduced by mr. sarbanes of maryland would realign the office and improve its ability to support ecosystem-based management, research science, and education all of which are very essential in our efforts to restore the chesapeake bay. i ask members on both sides to support passage of this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves.

the gentleman from virginia. m wittman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in support of h.r. 1771, the chesapeake bay science, education, and ecosystem enhancement act of 2009. which will authorize a number of programs within the chesapeake bay program. i'm a co-sponsor of h.r. 1771 and strongly support the efforts of my friend, mr. sarbanes from maryland, who has been a true leader on bay issues in this effort to improve and extend popular programs in the chesapeake bay water shed is a tremendous advancement in the effort to preserve the bay. for example, the bill supports efforts to move forward with the captain john smith chesapeake national historic trail. this the nation's first all water historic tail traces john smith's 17th century voyages of discovery in the bay from jamestown in my district. the bill also furthers efforts to extend noaa's smart buoy

system that provides real world weather data and historical presentation of points of interest along the cap anyone john smith trail. my district includes two of these buoys, one is located just offshore from the site of the first permanent english settlement in the new world at jamestown. the second is located off stingray point in the rappahannock river. this marks the site where captain john smith nearly died from a toxic sting of a stingray. mr. speaker, these programs highlight the historical and recreational significance of the bay and are extraordinarily important to many of our constituents here in the bay watershed. i would like to thank mr. sarbanes for his leadership on bay issues and thank him for all his efforts to preserve the bay. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from

maryland, mr. sarbanes, the author of this legislation, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairperson bordallo for yielding her time. i strongly urge as one would imagine as the original sponsor of this bill the chesapeake bay science, education seek eeko system enhancement act of 2009 be be adopted by the chamber. i want to thank congressman wittman for his co-sponsorship of this bill. congressman contractoville and -- contractville -- contracto have as well. -- kratovil. we have gotten into a habit of a mutual admiration society in terms of our commitment to the bay. it demonstrates how the health of the chesapeake bay and its protection, preservation going forward is really a bipartisan concern and we hope to continue to work together with each

other and with other members in this chamber. to make sure that the chesapeake bay is preserved. now, the noaa chesapeake bay office this would re-authorize provides very important and vital scientific research and data, habitat restoration, and environmental education which all play a very critical role in the health of the chesapeake bay and its restoration. . the buoy system provides real-time information including wave temperature, important information to the public, especially to boaters. just email my staff so they can remind me of the toll free number, 877-buoybay if you want

to tap in this or go to buoy bay.com. it will help the education and training program which provides real-time environmental education and helps how they affect the bay. i am part of the no child left inside act which is to get young people outdoors and into nature. this is the kind of information that's made available to them so they can engage firsthand. and there are many other dimensions of this that strengthen the noaa chesapeake bay -- office but let me just close by acknowledging again my real thanks and appreciation to chairman rahall to chair -- to chairperson bordallo for their assistance of getting this to the natural resources committee.

again, a salute to congressman wittman for his efforts on behalf of the bay. we are going to turn the corner on the chesapeake bay. it's because of the data and information and statistics and others that are provided by the noaa office. so re-authorizing that component of the chesapeake bay program is absolutely vital to the enterprise. and i urge my colleagues to support the bill today. and i had yield back my time to the chairperson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. kratovil, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kratovil: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1771, the chesapeake bay science, education, and ecosystem enhancement act. and also with your permission, mr. speaker, h.r. 1053, the

chesapeake bay accountability and recovery act which i believe is next up on the calendar. this will protect the beauty of the chesapeake bay for future generations while building the economic base of districts like maryland's first district, my district, whose local communities is dependent on the health of the chesapeake bay. by re-authorizing much-needed funding, the chesapeake bay science, education and ecosystem enhancement act will allow noaa's chesapeake bay office to continue to play a vital role in the management and restoration of the bay. additionally, h.r. 1771 will formally authorize noaa's bay water she had -- watershed program. since first being established in 2002, this program has provided critical assistance for hands on watershed education for thousands of students and teachers. when educators are given the necessary tools to engage their

students, the curriculum can foster a lifelong understanding about the importance of the bay and create future generations of stewards committed to its health and beauty. in the short term, the bill will expand the technical assistance that noaa can offer watermen who perform aquaculture techniques. it has led to an increase in both the clam and oyster populations. this bill will build on these successes keeping the seafood industry viable and protecting the overall ecosystem of the chesapeake bay. support of the legislation will help ensure the vitality of our natural resources throughout the bay in the long term and i thank again my colleague from maryland, congressman sarbanes, for introducing this bill. similarly, h.r. 1053, the chesapeake bay accountability and recovery act is legislation that will protect one of our national's treasures and north america's largest estuary while applying financial

responsibility and accountability practices to the funds that we appropriate to do so. and i want to thank congressman wittman for his leadership on this, as congressman sarbanes said, he's been a leader on a number of issues relating to the bay and i want to congratulate him on it. this legislation institutes performance based measures to make sure that dollars spent are producing results. every dollar we spend on the bay is money well spent, but not if we fail to track these dollars in order to determine best practices and eliminate waste and due policity. the bill would -- duplicity. the bill would help the management and budget and adapt management by the peaverpletpeaverplet. these initiatives will have -- by the environmental protection agency. these initiatives would be available to everyone, including congress. by sharing this information, stakeholders can make better informed funding decisions. adaptive management will

provide a means to evaluate the success and efficiency of bay restoration programs. it will increase coordination, reduce overlapse and improving decisionmaking. financial responsibility is a theme that we should apply to every dollar we spend and that includes protection of the bay. we aren't doing future generations any favors if we protect the health of the chesapeake bay but at the same time neglect to protect the health of our economy as a whole. and, again, i want to congratulate and thank congressman wittman from virginia for introducing the bill. mr. speaker, i urge support of both h.r. 1771 and h.r. 1053 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman: i'd like to recognize mr. kratovil for his work too. he's very much a partner in making sure we restore the bay and putting forth efforts we need to.

we know that maryland's first district and virginia's first district are very, very similar. they have many, many resources in common. they have many needs in common. we all realize that restoring the bay is a good environmental effort, but it's also a good economic effort. we know it's an economic driver. we know the jobs the bay creates. we know a healthy bay creates nor jobs, a more vibrant economy, both for our seafood industry and our tourism industry. i appreciate his efforts to partner to make sure we get things done with the bay and i think it's a great partnership how you can across state lines and across party lines to get things done in the best interest of our natural resources. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers, and with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, again, i urge members to support this important piece of legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1771, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. broun: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1053, as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 153, h.r. 1053, a bill to require the office of management and budget to prepare a crosscut budget for restoration activities in the chesapeake bay watershed, to require the environmental protection agency to develop and implement an adaptive management plan, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, restoration of chesapeake bay continues to be a very important goal for congress and the administration. yet, accounting and oversight

is difficult because the restoration activities are managed concurrently by a net worth of federal agencies, states and nongovernmental organizations. the pending measure, introduced by our colleague, mr. wittman of virginia, would enhance congressional oversight of restoration activities and chesapeake bay by requiring -- in chesapeake bay by requiring the preparation of a cross-cut budget. it would also require the environmental protection agency and other partners to develop and implement a comprehensive adaptive management strategy for restoration activities to ensure the best available scientific information is incorporated. so i ask members, mr. speaker, to support h.r. 1053, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i would first like to thank chairman rahall, ranking member hastings, mr. broun, and ms. bordallo for working with me to bring this legislation to the floor. i am honored to represent virginia's first congressional district. the first district includes many of the bay's major tributaries and borders of the chesapeake's shores. improving the health of the bay is our priority to me -- is a priority to me and many of my constituents and i think most members of congress. as members have heard on a number of occasions, the health of the chesapeake bay is in trouble. while the states and federal government continue to fund restoration activities, the news has not been getting much better. it is time we re-evaluate our efforts and determine if we can get better results from federal and state expenditures. i offered h.r. 1053, the chesapeake bay accountability and recovery act to address these issues and help move forward bay cleanup efforts. h.r. 1053 would implement and

strengthening management techniques like cross-cut budgeting and adaptive management. to ensure that we get more bang for our buck and continue to make progress in chesapeake bay restoration efforts. both techniques will ensure that we're coordinating how restoration dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how individual projects fit into the bigger picture. that way we're not duplicating efforts, wasting money or working at cross-purposes. h.r. 1053 would require the office of management and budget in coordination with state and federal agencies involved in the bay to report to congress on the status of chesapeake bay restoration activities. this legislation would also require the environmental protection agency to develop and implement an adaptive management plan for the chesapeake bay and all of its restoration activities. finally, on recommendations heard during committee hearings on this bill, we included the

creation of an independent evaluator for the bay. an independent evaluator to help serve an adaptive management and drive success in the bay program. i believe that these are key components for the complex restoration activities necessary to truly bring the bay back to a state that we will all be pleased with. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 1053, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairperson bordallo, again, for yielding to me. i want to urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1053, congressman wittman's bill. i'm a co-sponsor and proud to be one. this is a good way of bringing more of a comprehensive perspective to our efforts on behalf of the chesapeake bay.

as many mentioned, when talking about the bay, we're talking about a watershed with a tributary system that originates in six states and the district of columbia all flowing into the chesapeake bay. so we got a lot of geographic areas to manage and link together as well as numerous organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, organizations, citizen organizations, educational organizations that are all working on the same goal. there's only benefit that can be had when you bring this cross-cutting perspective in terms of the dollars that are spent, and i want to congratulate congressman wittman for bringing that kind of discipline to the overall program. i also just wanted to emphasize the adaptive management strategy because in a way this duck tails very nicely with the bill we spoke about regarding re-authorization of the noaa office. and the reason is that what adaptive management strategies are all about is recognizing

that you can adopt a certain strategy to deal with the health of the chesapeake bay and then just put it on a course that never changes. science is always changing, and because science changes we have to adjust to make sure that our management strategies reflect that science. so the very kind of information and data that the noaa office will be producing because it is re-authorized is the exact kind of data that can be used for this adaptive management approach. so i think this is a very good and strong bill. it's going to enhance our efforts to protect and preserve and strengthen the chesapeake bay over time. i congratulate congressman wittman for his efforts and i urge support of the bill and i yield back to chairperson bordallo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i would inquire if majority party has any additional speakers? ms. bordallo: i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority

whether they have any additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: we have no additional speakers and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i want to thank the author of this legislation, mr. wittman of virginia, and i again urge members to support this very important legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1053 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: on that, mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays -- yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, furt proceedings on this motion -- further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. lynch: i ask that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 16. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 16. resolution supporting the goals and ideals of national life insurance awareness month.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lynch: i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform, i am pleased to present house resolution 16 for consideration. this resolution expresses our support for the goals and ideals of national life insurance awareness month. house resolution 16 was introduced on january 6, 2009, by my colleague, representative judy biggert, of illinois and favorably reported out of the oversight committee on september 24 by unanimous consent. in addition, this legislation enjoys the bipartisan support of over 50 members of congress.

mr. speaker, the life insurance industry estimates that approximately 68 million americans lack sufficient life insurance coverage to safeguard the financial security of their families. accordingly, house resolution 16 seeks to increase the awareness regarding the importance of life insurance products to the financial security of american families by supporting the goals and ideals of national life insurance awareness month. while preparing for the inevitable may be a difficult task, it is a task that we should all take time to complete. life insurance products are intended to better insure the financial secure and stability of our loved ones by allowing them to meet and defend future financial obligations in the event of a death, disability or other unalternativity in their family. given the sponsor of life insurance to sound financial planning, i would encourage all families to review their financial situations and consider life insurance products as a possible safeguard against financial impact of an

unforeseen event. i'd like to thank the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kanjorski, for offering this informtive measure and i want to thank my -- ask my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 16 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman from ohio for yielding me the time and i want to thank my colleague from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for managing this resolution. mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support house resolution 16 which offers support to the goals and ideals of the national life insurance awareness month as recognized in september. i want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kanjorski, for introducing this resolution with he me for the sixth year. during previous years the house has passed identical resolutions

by voice vote or with as many as 412 yes votes. this year's resolution has 59 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. i also want to thank the gentleman from new york, chairman towns, and the gentleman from california, mr. issa, for moving this resolution through the committee on oversight and government reform. and i want to thank the senator from georgia and nebraska for introducing a companion resolution in the senate, senate resolution 211, making this a bipartisan bicameral effort. mr. speaker, life insurance too often is thought of only when it's too late. how many times have we heard about friends or loved ones sadly reflecting that the deceased had had no life insurance or had too little life insurance? they only -- today only four in 10 adults in america own individual life insurance policies and among those who do have life insurance, the amount

is often too small to safeguard the financial future of their loved ones. due to insufficient coverage, many families upon losing a loved one are often forced to work extra jobs or longer hours, to borrow money or move to less desirable housing because there was no insurance. house resolution 16 calls on the nation to observe the month of september as life insurance awareness month and the issue has been elevated by a broad coalition of providers and advocates including members of the life and health insurance foundation for education, the national association of insurance and financial advisors and the american council of life insurance. our collective goal for the month is to make families more aware of their life insurance needs and encourage them to seek professional advice as well as take actions necessary to provide financial security for their loved ones. mr. speaker, many of my colleagues on both the financial services committee and the

education and labor committee, especially my colleague from texas, ruben hinojosa, and i have been working very hard to increase the level of financial literacy across the nation. we recognize that by empowering consumers with the knowledge and understanding of how financial products work and how they can work toward financial security, we are taking a critical step that will help protect consumers from unexpected financial hardships and prepare them to succeed in today's complex financial marketplace. it's my hope that recognizing life insurance awareness month will help motivate americans to seek information about the benefits of life insurance so that premature death of a loved one does not bring with it economic hardship that too often accompanies tragedy. i ask my colleagues to join me in support of the goals and ideals of this year's national life insurance awareness month and thank my colleague and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, i don't anticipate any further speakers and i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i urge all members to support the passage of h.r. 16 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, i would simply urge my colleagues to support this measure, offered, sponsored by mrs. biggert of illinois and mr. kanjorski of pennsylvania and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and so the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 16. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. lynch: mr. speaker. on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: mr. speaker, on that i call the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 693. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 693, resolution honoring the life and accomplishments of jim johnson and extending the condolences of the house of representatives to his family on the occasion of his death. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for

three minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, he's always been known as a great phil delvian and great american. he was -- fill delvian and great american. he was a star quarterback in missouri and began his coaching career in missouri southern. jim johnson spent nearly 50 years in football. he coached in the usfl for the arizona cardinals and the indianapolis colts but he earned the title genius during 10-year seasons coaching in my home town of philadelphia. they led the league with 48 takeovers, including 28 interceptions during mr. johnson's first season as a defensive coordinator. the eagles went to their first fourth straight nfl championship game. the defense was ranked among the best in the nfl in almost every category and they remain an elite unit today. in his final season, the team had the top ranked defense and earned another trip to the nfl seed title game. the eagles' defense had 26 pro

bowl selections during his tenure, including safety dawkins. the team played in five nfl championship games and won a super bowl and won five titles. his greatest legacy has yet been written. coach has succeed -- has seeded the league with his disciples. many of his former assistants are crouching -- are coaching across the country. coach johnson could have been the head coach any time, anyplace, anywhere, but his loyalties were with the philadelphia eagles. his greatest thing about jim johnson has nothing to do with the football teeled. he was known by everyone as the picture of honesty and ma man who never sought the spotlight by one who gave generously with his time and talents. he's survived by his wife, two children and four grandchildren. he leaves behind grieving friends, players, colleagues and

fans. but memories of him will live forever. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. turner: i rise in support of h.res. 693 honoring the life and accomplishments of jim johnson and expressing condolences to his family on his death. today we honor jim johnson for his life accomplishments and for his positive attitude he exhibited even as he battled with cancer. mr. johnson began his coaching career as head coach of the missouri southern university. he went on to coach at notre dame. winning the national championship in his first year with the university. he entered the nfl in 1986 with the arizona cardinals and coached for 22 years for the cardinals, the indianapolis colts, the seattle seahawks and the philadelphia eagles. mr. johnson's achievements in life and his career are truly inspiring. he was one of the top defensive masterminds in nfl history.

in fact, his aggressive style noted for his frequent blitzing kept philadelphia at or near the top of the nfl in nearly every major defensive category since mr. johnson joined the eagle staff in 1999. with mr. johnson at the helm of the defense, the philadelphia eagles appeared in five nfl championship games including in 2004 when they advanced to the super bowl. philadelphia eagles head coach andy reid stated that, quote, he, johnson, really represented everything the city of philadelphia is all about with his toughness and grit. that's the way he fought his cancer. it is clear that mr. johnson made a large impact on those around him, on and off the field. sadly mr. johnson passed away from mel nomea on july 28, 2009, at the age of 68. although he has left this world, he'll forever be remembered for his accomplishments. i rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring mr. johnson and expressing our condolences to his family and passing by

supporting h.res. 693. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform, i'm proud to present house resolution 693 for consideration. this resolution serves to honor the life and accomplishments of nfl coaching legend jim johnson as well as extend our condolences to the johnson family on his passing. the measure before us was introduced on july 29, 2009, by my colleague who spoke earlier, representative bob brady of pennsylvania, and this measure was reported out of the oversight committee on september 24, 2009, by unanimous consent. additionally, house resolution 693 has been co-sponsored by over 50 members of congress and enjoys strong support from the members of the pennsylvania house delegation. house resolution 693 honors the

life and contributions of jim johnson with a football career that spanned over 50 years at the college level and with the national football league. a native of maywood, illinois, coach johnson began his career in football as a player. first as an all big eight quarterback from 1959 to 1962 at the university of missouri. under coach dan divine. and as a tight end with the buffalo bills from the american football league from 1963 to 164. in 1967 mr. johnson turned his attention to coaching and was hired pi missouri southern college as the -- by missouri southern college. his coach at the school was followed by four-year tours at drake university and at indiana university, and ultimately led to a six-year stint at defensive backs coach and defensive coordinator at the university of notre dame. and has been pointed out by my colleague, the fighting irish won the football championship in coach johnson's first season

with the team. coach johnson went on to coaching positions with the oklahoma outlaws and jacksonville bulls of the united states football league and the 1986 -- in 1986 entered the national football league as defensive line secondary coach for the arizona cardinals. coach johnson would later join the defensive coaching staff with the indianapolis colts before andy reid pursued and hired johnson to be the defensive coordinator in 1999. during his tenure with the eagles that perhaps most epitomizes his mastery of defensive schemes as noted by eagles coach, andy reid, coach, the best in the business what he does, closed quote. coach johnson's tenure in philadelphia witnessed 26 probowl selection -- pro bowl selections.

as noted by the philadelphia inquirer of coach johnson's eagles career will be remembered as, quote, one of the finest decades of football in history and when the chapter about the end of the 21st century is written about this football team, the name jim johnson will be mentioned prominently. in atigs to his professional accomplishments, coach johnson will be equally remembered as a moving husband to his wife, vicky, a dedicated father to his son scott and daughter michelle and enduring grandfather to his four grandchildren. regrettably, coach johnson passed away in july, 2009, at the age of 6. mr. speaker, it's my hope that we can honor the life and accomplishments of coach johnson and, precks our sincere condolences to his family in passing h.r. 693. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i urge all members to support the passage of h.res. 693 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing i urge my colleagues to join with the lead sponsor of this resolution, bob brady of pennsylvania, in supporting house resolution 693, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and so the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 693. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 186. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent

resolution 186, concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of sickle cell disease awareness month. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, on behalf of the government oversight and reform committee, i'm proud to present house concurrent resolution 186 for consideration. this legislation expresses our support for the goals and ideals of sickle cell disease awareness month. the measure before us was introduced on september 16, 2009, by my colleague and good friend, representative danny davis of illinois. and favorably reported out of the oversight committee on september 24 by unanimous consent.

in addition, this measure enjoys the support of over 70 members of congress, and i am proud to say that i am also an original co-sponsor. mr. speaker, house concurrent resolution 186 highlights the importance of sickle cell disease awareness month. sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder that predominantly affects individuals of subsaharan african ancestry. today, an estimated of 70,000 to 100,000 americans suffer from this disease and nearly one in 500 african-american newborns is born with sickle cell. individuals with sickle cell have red blood cells that assume a rigid sickle shape when these blood cells travel through the small blood vessels, they often clog blood flow. this offer creates severe pain,

anemia. tragically, the life expectancy those with sickle cell is greatly reduced. 42 males for males and 48 years for females. in africa, more than 90% of children with sickle cell die before the illness is even diagnosed. there is no cure for this illness. although with careful soup -- supervision, people with sickle cell can live a full and healthy life. they need to avoid crises, releaving symptoms and preventing complications. despite its prevalence and seriousness, little is known publicly about sickle cell disease. for this reason, sickle cell disease awareness month presents season opportunity to increase public understanding of this illness and to work collectively to find a cure for sickle cell. in closing, i wholeheartedly support this measure and encourage all my colleagues to join myself and member danny davis of illinois in voting in

favor of house concurrent resolution 186. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yes serves. the gentleman from ohio. -- the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. turner: this resolution seeks to bring attention to sickle cell disease and to support the designation of september as sickle cell awareness month. sickle cell disease strikes primarily persons of african descent. those affected by the disease appear to be healthy but their lives have painful attacks in their arms, legs, chest and abdomen. it causes the rapid destruction of sickle cells that have apeoplia, gal stones, tissue damage, cardiovascular and organ damage. 8,000 african-americans suffer from sickle cell disease and many are affected worldwide. statistics showingingly show

that one in every 320 african-american babies have the disease and one in eight african-american babies carry the sickle cell treat. there is a one in four chance of a child born to parents who both carry the sickle cell treat will have the disease. life expectancy is limited as an average life span for an adult with the disease is only 45 years old. a universal cure remains illusive. early diagnosis through newborn screening improves the quality of life. because s.c.d. is critical and -- ultimately preventing the disease, we are grateful for organizations like the sickle cell disease association of america that continues to shine a light of hope for those who have affected. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the month of september as national sickle cell disease awareness month so that communities throughout the country will become aware of this disease and the need for

additional research, effective treatments and pri venges programs will ultimately lead to a cure. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, i don't have any speakers on this matter, but i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i urge all members to support the passage of h.con.res 186, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague and i also urge all of our friends on both sides of the aisle to join with congressman danny davis, who is the lead sponsor of this measure, to support the ideals and goals of sickle cell disease awareness month by voting for house concurrent resolution 186. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and so the question is will the

house suspend the rules and and agree to house concurrent resolution 186. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 725. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 725, resolution congratulating the chula vista park view little league team of chula vista, california, for winning the 2009 little league world series championship. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. mr. speaker, i would now yield

five minutes to the lead sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from california, mr. filner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. filner: mr. lynch, i thank you. i thank chairman towns and the speaker for getting this resolution here so quickly. we celebrate today and congratulate the chula vista parkview little league team for winning the 2009 little league world series. i will tell you, mr. speaker, for several weeks earlier this month and last month our whole region, the san diego region and the city of chula vista, in particular, was enthralled by these 12 young men on the little league team who managed to win victory after victory. with dramatic comebacks. whether they were 5'1" or 6'2", they set the little league world series for a number of home runs. their defensive play was incredible, making some

fantastic double plays that were on replays all month long. and they're running the bases or just cheering on the team, every one of these 12 young men played a very important role and our whole region -- our whole region was enthralled by them. so we want to thank isiah and oscar and nick, keith, -- seth, marcus, daniel, luke, andy and bradley for their incredible play in this world series. the manager, oscar castro, the coach, rick ramirez, and little league president, rod, were key figures, of course, in this incredible victory. these young victory were doubled the blue bombers and their final game was against tie pay in a 3 victorand they had come from behind in that also. they displayed what solid

coaching brings and the fundamentals that little league -- that little league underlines. and, again, the whole region, whole region was thrilled by their performance. playing with poise, with class, with sportsmanship, they even invited the chinese tie pay team to join them on -- teipai team to join them to show their incredible team spirit and sportsmanship. chula vista, the city, hard hit by foreclosures and the national recession, it often feels overshadowed by the bigger city of san diego and affluent suburbs further north, but this victor was particularly sweet for the city of chula vista. it helped us all through some tough times. and when our professional teams in the area were losing the little league team was in fact victorious. we commend the hard work,

determination, the parents who came out always to support them and were with them the whole way, thashe coaches and their managers and the -- their coaches and their managers and the community themselves welcoming them home with 10,000 in the stadium welcoming them home, for example, had outstanding loyalty and support that they displayed for the team throughout the whole season. so i thank the house, i thank the speaker, i thank mr. lynch and chairman towns for joining me in congratulating and honoring the cheelcheel parkview little league team for winning the 2009 world championship game of the little league world series. i urge my colleagues to support this also. i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. turner: i rise today to urge passage of the resolution to congratulate the little league team of chula vista, california, for winning the 2009 little league world series

championship. the players contempt their sights high even after falling behind by three runs early in the game. through their perseverance, the players were able to come through with the win by a score of 6-3. quote, we knew we could come back, said the 13-year-old kiko garcia. we always do. the fantastic attitude of these players definitely helped them in achieving victory. there were many notable achievements on the field including a single which scored the go-ahead run in the fourth inand kiko garcia pitched three-plus scoreless innings of relief to lead the team to victory. the determination of the team is not unique to this championship game. it is something that they have learned through hundreds of hours of practice and previous games played. our nation should be proud of the great sportsmanship displayed by the chula vista little league team. after the win, the players invited the taiwan team players to join them in a victory lap around the stadium. these young men should be proud of the way they played the game of baseball and even more, the

way they represented their country. it is for these reason that i rise today to praise the team for winning the 2009 little league world series championship. thank you, mr. speaker, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform, i am pleased to support house resolution 725 for consideration. this resolution congratulates the chula vista park view little league team of chula vista, california, for winning the 2009 little league world series championship. the measure before us was introduced on september 9 by my colleague and friend, representative bob filner of california, and it was favorably reported out of the oversight committee on september 24 by unanimous con sent. notably this measure -- consent. notably this measure enjoys the support of over 50 members of congress. house res. youlusion 725 --

house resolution 725 applauds the series run led by coach ramirez, this group of young men clifrpbled the sixth little league world series title for the state of california and extended america's little league world series championship streak to five years. and the championship game, the california club overcame a three-run deficit to beat a formidable team from taipei, china, 6-3. these young men demonstrated the type of teamwork, camaraderie and never say never spirit needed to succeed in all facets of life. i wish them the best in the future endeavors and if they pursue a career in baseball they find their way to my beloved red sox. i also want to applaud the little league world series organizers for orchestrating another successful tournament. the series was first held in 1967 and although only american teams participated, today the competition is truly an international event, welcoming teams from canada, the

caribbean, latin america, asia, europe and the middle east and africa. in closing, let us as a body applaud the chula vista little league baseball team for their hard work and success and congratulate the organizers of the little league world series for helping to you instill the indispensable values of teamwork, sportsmanship and dedication in today's youth. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i urge all members to support the passage of h.res. 725 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i thank my colleague for his remarks aes and i want to thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with mr. filner from california, the lead sponsor of this measure, to congratulate the chula vista park view little league team by agreeing to house resolution 725 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and so the

question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 725? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. earlier in this series, i neglected to ask unanimous consent on behalf of all members for five days within which to revise and extend their remarks. i'd like to make that request now. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 734 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 734, resolution expressing the support for the -- for support

and honoring september 17, 2009, as constitution day. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: on behalf of the oversight committee i now presents remain house resolution 734 for consideration. this resolution expresses support for the goals and ideals emmed bodied in constitutions a. house resolution 734 was introduced on september 10, 2009, by my colleague, representative robert latta of ohio, and favorably reported out of the oversight committee on september 24, 2009. in addition, this resolution enjoys the support of over 60 members of congress. mr. speaker, house resolution

734 expresses our support for constitution day which is routinely celebrated on september 17. 11 years after the signing of the declaration of independence, 55 delegates from the first american states came together in philadelphia, pennsylvania, to create a constitution for a federal republic. after much hard work and careful deliberation, the constitution of the united states was signed on september 17, 1787, by 39 delegates from 12 states. as the supreme law of the united states, the constitution provides the basic structure for the organization of the american government. it is no exaggeration to say that the united states constitution is one of the most important documents in history. often referred to as a living document, this framework from our representative and democratic system of government has served the american people for over 200 years. making it the oldest federal constitution still in use in the

world. with its separation of powers, its checks and balances and preservation of rights, the constitution is a worthy example to purgening democracies everywhere. furthermore the values and principles it enshrines continue to be central to our nation's identity. i am sure my colleagues share my pride in serving, protecting and defending the united states constitution and i am pleased that we are taking the opportunity today to honor this most treasured document of our democracy. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting house resolution 734 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker ment i yield as much time as he may consume to my quish -- distinguished colleague from the state of ohio, the author of h.res. 734, mr. latta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. latta: i thank my colleague and, mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 734, which i introduced on

september 10, honoring supporting the constitution day. i've always been grateful that so many of our country's greatest leaders and statesmen were on this earth in the same time and place to draft the constitution. rooted in this document are the fundamental principles of the american system of liberty. our constitution has been that beacon upon the hill, that guiding star at night, and that shining state that millions of people around the world have been guided by within their own countries. the constitution took four hard months from may to september in 1787 to bring to fruition through their hard labor. again, the citizens that attended the convention in philadelphia were some of our greatest leaders and scholars. when you look at madison, franklin, hamilton, moore, jefferson and washington. many different ideas were brought to the con essential. were they there only to empower

the articles of confederation? there's a great debate about that. could they go farther and start from scratch? many a discussion was held in philadelphia's boarding houses and taverns. they created three branches of government, legislative, executive and judicial. james madison, the father of our constitution, was one of the first to arrive in philadelphia and he brought with him specific research ideas while others had theirs. it turned out to be a very hot summer that year. there was no air conditioning. secrecy was enforced, the proceedings mandated that all windows and doors be shut. tempers flared but through it all they worked because these men knew they were creating a document that would be there for a nation and for the ages. the birth of a new nation was being watched by the powers around the world. as mentioned, 55 delegates attended the constitutional convention with 39 of them signing the document. what emerged was a documenting containing 4,had 400 words. the store -- 4,400 words.

the so story goes that bedgeman franklin said the government being formed was a republic. it was the oldest and shortest form of government written in the world. i marvel at this. today citizens should look for guidance from the forefathers. it has been the framework of our great nation. not only did great men bring forth great ideas but for 222 years, this great experiment that we call america has been paid for by hundreds of thousands of lives, the lives of our brave military men and women. let the living always remember to give thanks to our honored dead who have paid the ultimate sacrifice that the constitution of the united states remains our guiding light. two few citizens today have read this important document and it is short. and it's important. it is short and it should be learned and it should be studied. the preamble of our document

states that we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings to ourselves and our posterity, to ordain and establish this constitution of the united states of america. the words we the people affirm that any power the federal government is given to by the people of this great land and we in congress must always remember that. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers at this time. but i will continue to yield. continue to reserve, i'm sorry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i urge members to support the passage of h.res. 734 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleagues for their remarks in support of this resolution and i urge them to support mr. latta and his lead sponsorship of this resolution in support of the goals and ideals of constitution day and i urge my colleagues spo join us in supporting house resolution 734 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and so the sque, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 734 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, ma'am. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 29, 2009, at 11:06 a.m., that the senate passed with an amendment, h.r.

3614, that the senate passed senate 1717, that the senate passed with an amendment request a conference with the house of representatives and appointed conferees. h.r. 2996. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 3614. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill? the clerk: h.r. 3614, an act providing for an additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958, as amended -- and for other purposes. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i

ask that he can that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. velazquez: thank you. the legislation before us will ensure that small business programs will continue to operate through the end of october. the house and the senate have been working diligently on a comprehensive re-authorization of the s.b.a. program. however, as we approach the deadline for when these programs will otherwise expire, this bill is necessary to keep the agency's programs running. some minor changes to the program which were contained in the extension that the house passed last week are now in this measure.

there is widespread support for this measure. i hope we can have those changes in future legislation. the small business committee will continue working with our senate counterparts to modernize the s.b.a. programs, some of which have not been updated in 10 years. while we continue our work, this bill will allow the s.b.a.'s program to continue operating and serving entrepreneurs. i urge my colleagues to vote yes, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the chairwoman's request to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3614, as amended. the bill extends until october 31, 2009, the authorization of the programs of the small business act and any programs operated by the small business administration for which congress has already appropriated funds.

while the goal is to pass comprehensive legislation re-authorizing the s.b.a. for alonger period, the short-term extension ensures that these programs will remain available for small businesses across the country. without enactment of this extension, a number of essential programs that the s.b.a. operates would cease to function. given the importance that small businesses play and will continue to play in the revitalization of the american economy, we cannot allow the s.b.a. authorization or re-authorization to run out. enactment of this legislation will enable the house and senate to continue to work in a diligent manner to address necessary changes to s.b.a. programs. i urge all of my colleagues to support -- to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3614, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. wu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. for three minutes. mr. wu: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3614,

and specifically those provisions which extend the sbir and sttr programs. small businesses grow our economy and they innovate. the sbir and sttr programs help small companies develop cutting edge technologies for the marketplace. however, these programs will expire at the end of this month and h.r. 3614 temporarily extends the re-authorization -- the authorization of these programs while we work to finalize re-authorization efforts. both the house and the senate passed legislation earlier this year to re-authorize sbir and sttr. we have been working to find those areas of common ground on areas where we disagree and while we have yet to reach a final agreement, we all have the same goal, to re-authorize important programs which drive our economy and drive job creation.

sbir is a program for small business and it is also an innovation program. it can and should serve both policy purposes. it should not be a stalking horse for big business nor should it become the preserve of only some small businesses while shutting out other small businesses who are frequently very good innovators in and of themselves. we need to find the common ground that serves these policy objectives and serve them well for the good of our nation, our economy and job creation. and with that i yield back the balance of my time and want to recognize the very good work of chairwoman velazquez in this arena. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i don't have any further speakers at this time, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i

have no further speakers. and if the gentleman's prepared to yield back or -- mr. turner: mr. speaker, i urge all members to support passage of h.r. 3614, and yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. and the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 3614. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

he met this morning with deputy secretary of state jack rue. and will be meeting with a range of u.s. government officials on several issues during his stay here in washington. .

>> with that, i'll take your questions. >> does that hold any prospects of them having conversations or other contact -- does the fact they still have access does that mean they will are direct contact with the families? >> we have been demanding consular access since we were informed that iran did, in fact, have the hikers just over a month ago. we look forward to having the first meeting and hearing back from our swiss friends on what the conditions under which they

are being detained and then we'll see. obviously, we would like to have them released as quickly as possible. but what happens from this point forward, let's get the first reading. >> do you see any connection to that and the fact that you are meeting with them in two days' time? >> hard to say. i mean, clearly we welcome the fact that iran is meeting up to its obligation under the vienna convention and on thursday, we will have a similar message that iran has to live up to its obligation under the nonproliferation treaty. but beyond that, i can't say. [inaudible] >> we welcome that decision. but we are looking forward to having the first encounter with the swiss ambassador, whoever on

her staff has the opportunity to see them and talk to them. >> do you think this shows any willingness of goodwill on t their part that may transfer over? >> we'll see. we welcome this step, but obviously, we are anxious to see iran engage on thursday and looking forward to that meeting as well. >> what topics do you expect to be discussed during these meetings here at the state department? >> it's part of continuing dialogue that we have opened with the syrian government that began earlier this year with visits by assistant secretary and dan shapiro and there have been visits by special envoy george mitchell. i think it's a wide range of issues, but i wouldn't detail. >> how would you describe the

status of u.s., syrian relations -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we'll take you live back to capitol hill as promised and a house hearing on the victims' rights act. >> having been unable to come to a consensus about a constitutional amendment in 2004, congress enacted statutes and other statutes that have established certain statutory rights for crime victims and provides funding for services for crime victims. using a statute rather than a constitutional amendment avoids the complications which arise when defendants' rights might be compromised under a constitutional amendment. since 1982, the federal government has passed a number of laws that addressed the role of crime victims in the criminal justice system including the crime vicks tims rights act of 2004. that act was signed into law as

part of title i of the justice for all act. the law improved the role of victims in the criminal prosecution, including identifying specific rights of federal crime victims and victim witnesses not to be excluded from public court proceedings unless the court determines that the victim's testimony would be influenced. crime victims are given the right to be heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving the release, plea, sentencing or the right to be heard at any parole hearing. 2004 law gives rights -- gives victims the rights to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding, any parole hearing, any release or the escape of a defendant. the act also established two procedures to ensure the victims' rights are protected. the law directed the department of justice to develop a process to receive and develop complaints relating to violations of crime victims'

rights to ensure that the department of employees are complying. the crime victims rights act enables victims to assert their rights in district court not only when they believe the employee has violated their rights but if they have any concerns about their ability to exercise their rights. the 2004 act directs the u.s. accountability office to evaluate the implementation of the law. the g.a.o. will testify today about its 2008 report which assesses how the department of justice has ensured that crime victims are given their statutory rights. one of the findings in the g.a.o. report concluded that several important issues have surfaced. for example, questions such as at what point in the criminal justice process do crime victims' rights apply. and does the law apply to local offenses prosecuted in the

district of columbia superior court. both of those have been litigated in federal court, but essentially remain unsettled. i hope the department in its testimony will discuss its position on various unsettled legal issues that have resulted in different court interpretations of the crime victims' rights act. the 2004 law authorized funding for programs that provide crime victims with services, funding for organizations that provide legal counsel to federal crime victims and funding for the improved victim notification system. although most of these grants have been re-authorized through 2013, we'll review how the funding has been spent to date. it is important to note that the crime victims rights act only applies to federal prosecution, but we have a concern about how victims are treated in state court. and indeed, $100 million in the recent recovery package provided funding for state compensation

and assistance for victims. several witnesses will testify how the 2004 law has been implemented including representatives from the g.a.o. and department of justice. before we get to the witnesses, it's my pleasure to recognize the ranking member for today, mr. poe from texas. judge gohmert is not with us. and mr. poe is sitting in on his behalf. mr. poe. mr. poe: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you calling this oversight hearing on the crime victims act of 2004. to my knowledge, this will be the subcommittee's first hearing on this landmark piece of legislation. the crime victims rights act or the cvra was passed in 2004. the cvra significantly expanded the rights of crime victims in

the criminal justice system. the overarching goal of the crime victims rights act was to make sure victims of federal crimes enjoyed certain rights of notice, attendance, participation in several criminal justice processes. the same constitution that protects defendants of crime protects victims of crime as well. as crime victims are afforded numerous protections under the bill of rights and other federal laws, it was the feeling of members of congress that the criminal justice system did not have enough statutory protections for rights of victims. to address that, congress created a statutory bill of rights for victims of crime committed in violation of federal law or the laws of the district of columbia. the rights conveyed by the cvra are those eight rights rgs the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, the right to notification of public, court and parole proceedings in the

release of the accused, the right not to be excluded from public court proceedings under most circumstances and the right to be heard in public court proceedings relating to bail and acceptance of a plea bargain, sentencing or parole. the right to confer with the prosecutor. the right to restitution under the law. the right to proceedings free from unwarranted delays and the right to be treated fairly and with respect to one's dignity and privacy. the cvra directs the courts and law enforcement officials to see to it that these rights are honored. both victims and prosecutors may assert their rights and seek review should the rights be nirlly denied. in addition to the statutory rights, the cvra created grant programs and other authorizations to protect and further crime victims rights. to me, this is good use of taxpayer money. under the cvra, the department of justice may make grants to public and private entities to develop and maintain programs

for the enforcement of crime victims' rights as provided by the law. as a former prosecutor and judge, i have had personal experience working with americans who have been victimized by crime and whose lives and families' lives have been torn apart. i started in the criminal justice system back in the 1970's as a prosecutor and a judge i guess forever until i came to congress. in one case i prosecuted a homicide that involved four people, an entire family was assassinated for the life inheritance of these four individuals. one of those was a child. he is the same age as my four kids, my son. and i have had this photograph on my desk since that prosecution in 1979 because he was 14 months old when he was murdered. and i have always wondered how he would turn out, how his

siblings would turn out and i think it's important that we in this sterile environment of washington, d.c. remember victims of crime are people. they are american people who have had their lives shattered by the fact that someone else picked them to be prey, have something stolen from them, have an assault committed against them or have a homicide committed against them. so i appreciate the chairman having this hearing. as a member of congress, i do serve as co-chair of the victims' rights caucus that advocates for crime victims and law enforcement officials. so i support the cvra and look forward to hearing testimony. i welcome all the witnesses being here today. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> does the gentleman have illinois have any comments? the gentleman from illinois did a lot of work in criminal law.

mr. goodlatte, do you have any comments? did you do prosecution or defense? [inaudible] >> you're familiar with the criminal justice process. we'll now get to our witnesses. first witness is ms. arlene lawrence who serves as the director of homeland security and justice issue at the g.a.o. she manages congressional requests to assess law enforcement and department of justice issues and state terrorism information sharing. she has a master's degree in public administration. second witness is mr. lawrence rothenberg. he has helped develop and implement policies regarding victims' rights, child exploitation, indian country and international human rights and forensic sciences.

graduate of amherst college and tuftskwlufert and harvard law school. and we have the acting assistant attorney in the office of justice programs at the department of justice. prior to joining the department, she served as executive director for the national center of victims of crime, a nonprofit organization in washington, d.c. she also has served as deputy associate attorney general for the office of the associate attorney general and acting director of the office of community oriented policing services or the cops program during her previous service at the department. next witness is douglas ballouf professor of law at lewis and clark law school in portland, oregon. he is the director of the national crime victim law institute which represents crime victims in appellate court. he maintains a data base on

victim law and promotes legal education of law students, judges and victim advocates. he received his bachelor of arts from the university of california, berkley. our final witness is susan smith howley, director of public policy. she has served at the victim' services and crime victims' rights laws. graduate of georgetown law university center. we would ask each witness to summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within the time. there is a timing device at the table which will begin as green and turn to yellow when there is one minute left and turn to red when your time has expired. we'll begin with ms. lawrence.

>> mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee. i am pleased to be here today to summarize the results of our review and howell the victims rights act is working. g.a.o. answered four questions about the fact. first, we determined what sfeps the department of justice and the courts were taking to implement the act and fix any implementation problems. second, we assessed howell the act through enforcement members of the committee nisms were working. we reviewed the courts's interpretation. and fourth, we asked different participants what difference they think the act has made. we found the department and court have taken steps to provide employees with training and revised rules and victims with services. they have taken steps to overcome challenges, some of which are inherent to the judicial process. for example, cases of computer

fraud or identity theft can involve large numbers of victims. this makes it hard to notify all victims or let all of them speak in court. justice staff were using emails to overcome these hurdles. the department is providing funding through contractors to help with the increased administrative work load such as the increased number of notice of court proceedings that must now be sent to victims. while we tried, we could not determine how much funding the department was appropriated to implement the act. as you know, congress authorized funding for fiscal years 2005-2009 and extended that funding for staff assistants, enhancement notification systems, legal support to victims and grants to states and localities for victim assistance. because the department receives funds are lumped in with funds, it is not possible to separate out and report on cvra funding. turning now to the enforcement

members of the committee nisms that the chairman mentioned, victims reported that they did not use these tools in part because they didn't know about them. for example, the department created the victim rights ombudsman to receive and investigate complaints. we found, however, that few victims filed complaints and many reported that they didn't know they could. we found that the complaint process was not as independent and impartial as it could be. for example, in some cases, justice employees were investigating complaints about their office mates or superviseors. in addition, we found victims did not use the second enforcement mechanism to file a motion in court and subsequently a writ of man dame us in the appeals court if they believed their rights were compromised. we recommend the department take steps to address these issues. they convened a working gupe that is assessing how to respond and has made changes to the ombudsman process to help ensure

independence. in regard to our third question as is typical with many laws, the courts have been interpreting provisions in the act to answer questions about it, such as do rights apply before a person is charged with an offense? if victims only submit written sfamentse, were they quote reasonly heard in court? the department agrees that the congress should change the law to answer one question that has caused confusion, does the act apply to victims of local crimes in d.c. superior court. some judges have applied the act while others have not. the department says the law does apply. we suggest that the congress consider clarifying the act to address this issue. finally, we asked various participants if they thought the act made a difference, perhaps not surprisingly, views are mixed. most maintain that the act did improve awareness about victim rights, treatment and participation in the legal process.

others maintain federal and state governments as well as the courts were providing victims these rights because of state laws so perhaps the act has little impact. victims said they were aware of most, but not all of their rights and they were varied as to how the rights were honored. the concern of victims' rights could come at the defendants. they could alter their testimony . mr. chairman, that concludes my statement and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon chairman scott and ranking member poe and members of the subcommittee. i'm a deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal policy at the department of justice where i have worked on victims' rights issues for more than five years and including implementation of the cvra.

i have a personal interest as the son of a murder victim. my father was murdered in the u.s. virgin islands in 1984. thus, i have firsthand appreciation of the needs of federal crime victims and importance of d.o.j. employees taking those rights seriously. indeed, the rights of crime victims are important to the department and we are glad that the subcommittee is focusing on those rights and we have been given the opportunity to discuss the work. in the five years since passage, the department has worked hard to fulfill its both letter and spirit. almost immediately after passage of the act, extensive awareness and education program was commenced within the department. using funding provided by the office for victims of crime, the executive office for the united states states attorneys held trainings in an effort to reach all those in the department to spread the message of a new crime victims rights law.

the attorney general guidelines for victim and witness assistance were revised in may, 2005 to include the act's new protections and training video on the guidelines was distributed to all components. we established the office of the victims' rights ombudsman which has the authority to investigate complaints made by victims against d.o.j. employees. the vast majority of complaints received were not within the jurisdiction however, because it either referred to state or private authorities, judges, non-d.o.j. agencies or complaints against individuals who were not involved. those cases involved, many involved simple errors such as victims' names being left off the mailing lists or defendants falling behind in payments. our work has had a real effect but it's difficult to quantify a change in awareness. we have indications that victims are participating in cases more

often and receiving more and better services. for example, the number of victim notifications sent by the department has nearly tripled and victims are participating in more proceedings than ever before. essential victim services have also increased. in fiscal year 2008, victim witness personnel in u.s. attorney offices filed 27% more victims than in 2006 when we started tracking that data. they utilized a wide range of resources from state, local and federal agencies and victim service organizations. the department has used the provisions to protect victims' rights in court. for example, we are currently litigating the right of victims to be heard in child porn cases. last year, a district court in california on its own struck victim impact statements from the presentencing report from a defendant who pled guilty. the court said the statements were not relevant to the

possession charge that led to the actual abuse. we believe this is legal error and there is a long line of cases that children who have been photographed are revictimized every time those are viewed by another offender. the impact statements in this case specifically describe the emotional harm felt by the victims knowing that images of their sexual abuse are in circulation. we are aggressively pursuing the right of these victims to have their say before the court. i believe that g.a.o.'s review validates the impact of the cr va. g.a.o. found the majority of crime victims were aware of their rights. they found that victims are satisfied with the department's provision of those rights. g.a.o. did make recommendations based upon its review as the previous witness described and also as the previous witness described we have convened a working gupe that has examined

these issues and preparing specific responses to them, including, for example, the one we have taken in order to revise the v.r.o.'s procedure in order to eliminate the appearance of the conflict of interest. that concludes my statement and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you the department of justice's efforts to implement the cvra. we appreciate your interests in this issue. i, myself, have a particular interest in the issue, since i have been working with victims of crime throughout my career as a local prosecutor, a federal prosecutor, head of a national victims advocacy organization. treating crime victims with dignity and respect and

protecting their rights is a high priority for the attorney general, mr. holder, and for the entire department of justice including the office of justice programs. and as g.a.o.'s recent audit demonstrates, the department has made substantial efforts to comply with its obligations to victims of crime. whether or not those obligations are imposed by the cvra or any other provision of federal law. o.j.p. has played a critical role through its policy development and through program funding. as this committee is aware, the cvra tasks the on office of victims of crime with collecting victims' information from other d.o.j. components. they are required to submit a report of this to the attorney general. they submitted a combined report, information for 2005 -2007 that summarizes d.o.j.

component reports and makes a number of recommendations for improvements throughout d.o.j. components. o.b.c. is working on completing the 2008 attorney general compliance report. also in the response to a recommendation in the g.a.o. audit, o.b.c. is working with the office of legal policy and other d.o.j. components to develop a standardized compliance survey that will be completed annually by all components at the department and will give us a much clearer idea of departmental efforts in this arena. the report is just one of the many ways in which o.j.p. is working with other d.o.j. components to improve victims' services and protect their rights. 2005, o.b.c. provided the executive office of u.s. attorneys with $1 million to provide training on cvra.

o.b.c. has provided support for federal victim coordinator and specialist positions in u.s. attorney offices and f.b.i. field offices. i know from my own experience as an ausa that these specialists are critical and they provides services. one example is with terrorism and trafficking victims. in the aftermath of last year's terrorist attacks in india where there were a number of american victims, they identified 120 victims. they arranged for repatriot tryation for victims who died in the attacks. and those specialists continue to this day to provide services to those victims and their families. crisis counseling, therapy referrals, employer intervention, verification for crime victim compensation programs and a number of other

services and notification of rights. those victim specialists have made all the difference for the victims of that attack. another important example in fiscal year 2009, o.b.c. provided $1 million for model projects, particularly in indian country to provide support to the u.s. attorney offices and bureau of indian affairs on victims' services and rights. one of the advocates that was hired through this program recently worked with 17 high school kids who were involved in a very tragic vehicular homicide on the white river apache reservation. 17 kids in the pickup truck, the driver had been drinking and drove the car into a ditch. her cousin was killed and four others were critically injured.

the victim specialists are working with all of those victims and with their families and with the community. o.b.c. supports the nation wide victim notification system, which is a shared web-based application, involves f.b.i., postal inspection office, u.s. attorney's office, d.o.j. this provides victims with a toll free number and use that number to get access to current case information and there is a website that provides that information as well. we're working with -- to make sure every d.o.j. gets linked up to that system. o.b.c. has undertaken other efforts to enhance victims' services at every level in the criminal justice system. we have awarded over $4 million to the national crime victim law institute for the crime victims' rights enforcement project.

you'll hear that about that more but they are working throughout the country to enforce their rights in court. in addition to o.b.c., the bureau of justice assistance has awarded over $39 million to 38 states and puerto rico through the state automated victim notification programs. and that helps states build, implement and improve the state level victim notification capacity. it helps the states get the technology they need to maintain critical information about offenders in almost real-time. so crime victims in states now have unprecedented access to real-time information. imagine what that means to a victim of a sexual assault who's terrified that the offender will be released from prison and she won't know about it and turn

around and there he'll be. that victim can get real-time information and should not ever be surprised like that. i would like you to know that the department will continue to expand and improve its efforts to assist victims and to protect their rights. under the cvra and under every pertinent provision of law. this has been a critical part of the department's mission and will continue to do so. thank you for your attention and i will take any questions you have. >> thank you, mr. scott and honorable members of the committee. i assisted in the drafting of the crime victims rights act of 2004. right now, the cvra represents a broken promise to crime victims in several essential respects. first of all, the authorized funding under the cvra has not been forthcoming in the form of

additional appropriation. efforts the government is talking about largely have been made out of existing funds. there has been an appropriation in one category of funding that is of particular interest to me. it was a critical component of the cvra to provide independent legal services to enforce these rights. the amount authorized in the cvra was $7 million and $11 million thereafter for a period of five years. that amount has been re-authorized by congress within the last year. there have been three years of that money coming under $2 million, a little over $2 million and $4 million. funding close to the level of your authorization has never occurred. this year, there is no funding at all for these services, for these legal services, despite the fact that it has been

authorized. this is, in my mind, perhaps the most critical problem of the implementation of the cvra, authorization without appropriation dooms the cvra experiment. as the chair noted, this legislation was passed in lieu of a constitutional right. and one of the central premises of this statutory scheme were to test these laws with independent attorneys to see if they would be satisfactory. this testing is occurring on an extremely limited basis. we have created a slim framework of legal clinics extremely limited funding. this network of legal services and the case banks and information collect you had is all on the brimping of collapse shortly. without authorization for this funding, the cvra and the state law equivalents of victims'

rights will have no champions and will be doomed to failure. the second biggest critical problem i see is the split of authority in the courts that threatens to, as a practical matter, end enforcement of crime victims' rights. the argument is whether the standard of review is that of an appeal or that of mandamus. the standard of review of appeal guarantees meaningful review where all victims' rights have been violated. it has been the justice department's position that the standard of review should instead be mandamus. that means that would rarely be enforcement of victims' rights on review. the federal courts are currently split on this issue. the third critical problem i see

in the implementation of vicks tims' rights. the department of justice has taken variety of positions in both the letter and spirit of the cvra. the most critical of these is the position on the standard of review. but there are others as well. another unfortunate stance of the department of juts ties has been to seek a very narrow definition of victim first. there can only be a victim after the government indites and second, they have sought a narrow construction of the definition of approximate harm. on the other hand, in fairness, there have been cases in which the justice department has cooperated with lawyers that i'm aware of and it has worked out very well. and there has been substantial success. however, the level of cooperation is a far more common

occurance in the state courts than in federal prosecutions. members of congress should ask the present attorney general to visit the approach to crime victims' rights that some in the department have taken and encourage the department to take a position that makes these rights expansive rather than reduces them. as critical as i am of these unfortunate positions taken by the department, the most regrettable shortcoming again, i would like to emphasize is the failure to fund the cvra. this experiment cannot be tested without it. i want to say quickly that i'm very grateful for the office of victims of crime which has worked diligently with limited resources, resources mostly that have not been appropriated under this authorization to try to do something with the resources

they have concerning the cvra. they are to be commended for that. we could all do a lot more with proper funding. thank you. >> and our last witness. >> good afternoon, chairman scott and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk to you about the implementation of the scott campbell and others crime victims rights act of 2004. i will focus my testimony today on four issues. first is the need to clarify the applicability of the act prior to the formal filing of charges, the need to clarify the applicability of the district of columbia, the need to strengthen the victims' rights compliance program and need to refine and fund the cvra grant programs. there has been some question as you have heard as to the applicability of the cvra prior to the filing of charges.

we urge congress to clarify. while a number of the rights in the cvra specifically apply to the criminal justice process and so it would attach after the filing of charges, others are not to inherently pliment limited. victims should be treated to fair treatment from the time they file a complaint with law enforcement. if a victim expresses fear for his or her safety prior to the filing of charges, the criminal justice system should provide the assistance it can regarding protection. and when cases involve official plea negotiations prior to the filing of charges, surely the victim's right to confer with the prosecutors must attach. we also ask congress to clarify the applicability of cases in the district of columbia superior court. while the definition of victim states that crimes in the district of columbia are clearly covered by the cvra, other

sections create a.m. bigity by referring solely to the district court rather than specifically including the d.c. superior court. we agree with the g.a.o. that the victim' rights compliance system is inadequate. i want to address one issue. g.a.o. found that federal victims were unaware they had the right to file a complaint or the right to seek legal advice. we urge congress to give crime victims the right to be informed of their legal rights, including the right to file a complaint and the right to secretary legal advice. finally, i want to highlight two important grant programs. the first is to provide money to the u.s. attorney office victim programs. the drafters understood that the law would create additional burdens. to our knowledge, this grant program has never been requested

or appropriated. money is needed for additional data entry, low-level contractors to relieve service specialists fl the routine victim contact information and free them to provide the important hands-on victim assistance for which they have been trained. the program should specifically allow funding for such data entry positions and should be expanded to include the investigation stage, because victim specialists at that stage also have significant data entry burdens relating to the victims' right to notification. we also urge increased funding for organizations that provide legal assistance to victims in criminal cases. our national crime victim help line receives calls from too many victims who need this type of help and we have too few places to send them. just last week we got the call

of the mother of a 12-year-old sexual assault victim. in the two years the case had been pending, she had never been notified of the status of the case by the prosecutor's office. she had made repeated attempts to learn the status of the case. final huhly she found out that a plea agreement had already been entered and now wants to make a victim impact statement but has no confidence that she will be allowed to. our staff counseled her on how to advocate for herself but she needs a victims' rights clinic or attorney and her state has none. thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. the national center would be pleased to assist you as you work to refine and re-authorize the provisions of the crime victims rights act. >> i thank all of our witnesses for their testimony and i recognize ourselves under the five-minute rule for questions. and first, does the department

have a position on the situation in washington, d.c.? it's my understanding that all of the prosecutions in the district courts -- excuse me in the d.c. courts as opposed to the federal courtsf they are felonies, the u.s. attorney's office is doing the prosecution, is that right? >> your question all the local crimes prosecuted in the d.c. courts? >> at least the felonies? >> yes. some crimes could be brought in iter d.c. superior court or district court. >> federal district court? >> correct. >> if it's a felony, the u.s. attorney is prosecuting whichever court it lands in? >> correct. >> misdemeanors -- even misdemeanors? the corporation counsel doesn't do that? >> the juvenile crime is

prosecuted primarily by the attorney general of the district of columbia. if a juvenile is transferred to adult -- >> all other felonies, it's the u.s. attorney. does the department have a position on whether or not this act ought to apply in washington, d.c. in those cases prosecuted by the u.s. attorney? >> if for all practical purposes, the superior court operations at the u.s. attorney's office -- i have to deaver on any policy questions. >> what my colleague just said is accurate. the department considers that it applies and we act in all circumstances if it does apply i believe to the extent that they are as is not the case indicated that there are some judges who do not believe it applies. >> you wouldn't be offended if we made it specific?

>> made it clear that it does apply? >> right at this moment on what changes, we are happy to work with you in any changes you feel would be appropriate. >> one of the things about the act is it has some of the provisions are labor intensive. some work has to be done, which means you have to have enough staff in the u.s. attorney's office to work with the victims and witnesses. i think you have indicated we haven't appropriated the money. how much would we need to provide the assistance contemplated under this act that has not been appropriated? >> i don't know what the exact figure would be but we will work with or that. i will say that improvements have been made and some of them

through additional staffing provided to the offices and some of them through automation. the victim notification system is connected directly to the electronic case filings systems of the district court so that really expedites the notification and eliminates error, inaccuracy and saves a lot of time. >> you're going to work with us to get the appropriations so we can provide the services contemplated under the act? >> we will be happy to work with the committee on all of that. >> we talked about definition of victims and comments have been made about some cases, the management of the victims can be complicated. the madoff case, does anybody know what happened to the victims in that case, how they were managed? >> i'm specifically familiar with the case.

if there are particular concerns that you have, i would be happy to work with your staff. >> there >> lots of victims. did they get to make impact statements? there were reports that -- the public reports are that a lot of people got ripped off and each individual would consider him or herself a huge victim. >> there are a significant number of victims in the madoff case. you remember the terrorism prosecutions in eastern virginia and there was litigation whether each victim could make a statement. i don't know the specifics in the madoff case, but we can look into that. >> do we have other problems with determining who is a victim? if you have a gang shoot youth, is there a problem with who is a victim and who is a victim?

has that been a problem? >> the definition that came up is the perfect definition. having to litigate that issue against the department of justice. it includes any victim to is harmed by the offense. so i haven't seen a problem with the definition itself. but i have seen what i think is unnecessary litigation about what the scope of that is. >> well, are you litigating because the act is not clear enough or because an individual fact situations, you have to figure out what the facts are to decide how to apply the law? >> a little of both. i think some of the litigation is unnecessary in the sense that it's clear when victims get their rights under the statute

and it's clear what the definition of victim is. the definition of victim is someone who has been proximately harmed by the event and that's not a mystery in law. there are a lot of cases that define the scope and outline of approximate harm in other context that are applicable to this. so both is true. there are few things that are unclear. the standard of review is not crystal clear. the definition of victim is pretty clear. >> i have other questions, but i'll deaver to mr. poe -- defer to mr. poe. >> i have some questions regarding review, complaints made for violation of one of the eight rights, victim notifies your office or put in contact with your office in some cases.

do you have -- give me some ball park figure of number of complaints, number of filings, whether it's an appeal or mandamus and success. has the victim's rights been upheld or not founded by the appellate court. >> easier to start backwards if i can. and we have mandamus. there is not a flood of mandamus. we have limited resources for attorneys to do these things. but the answer is there's a mix of success and that success depends largely on what the standard of review interpretation is. sometimes we are litigating these cases alongside the justice department, in cooperation with them. sometimes we are litigating against the justice department. in terms of numbers, i would have to get back to you on those

numbers. there are far more state cases than federal cases. and one thing that the cvra does not do is it does not apply to state cases. >> you think congress ought to make it clear whether it should be appellate review or mandamus. >> they should make clear that it is standard of appellate review. otherwise, these rights are essentially from a legal perspective not enforceable very often. that was the whole function of the experiment of the statute, at least that was the understanding of every member of congress i permly spoke to about it. >> the rights don't have some enforcement or some sanction, then they are meaningless. >> the history of this is that there was an advisory victims' rights provision and the oklahoma city bombing, you may remember and the victims of the oklahoma city tried to attend

the trial. and victims' attorneys, particularly the prove et ceteraor at the university of utah worked with the united states department of justice and they both tried to enforce the vicktims' rights to attend that trial in the oklahoma city case. and it failed because it was an advisory act. and the problem with the mandamus standard of review is that it risks the same thing. it is somewhat more enforceable but not guaranteed it is more enforceable. it depends what the circuit court sbreps -- sbrets the need for relief. we are not completely back where we started, but it was three steps forward and the standard of review, it's two steps back again. >> on the comments you made about victims' rights taking place before the charge or after

the charge or when are they taking effect, what would you want congress to do >> i would like congress to make clear that it is not post-indictment. some of them would be limited by their language, the right to be heard at a public court proceeding is limited to post-indictment. some of these other rights as i mentioned should apply from the time the crime victim has filed a complaint. >> you would like us to just make that clear? >> yes, please. >> ms. lawrence, did the g.a.o. examine how the courts are doing in enforcing victims' rights under the cvra and are courts aware or judges aware of their obligations under the act? >> we did look at a number of actions that the courts have taken to make the judges aware and they have taken quite a few actions in terms of training.

they revised the judges' bench book and revised rules for criminal procedures. they have made extensive training available, including over their closed circuit tv network. so they have made -- taken numerous steps to increase the awareness among the judiciary of those rights. >> it seems to me years ago there was a philosophy, general philosophy among prosecutors that victims were just another witness in their case. do you think that is still a philosophy in the u.s. attorney's office or do you want to comment on that? >> i would say, congressman, that is not the case. if it ever was the case among federal prosecutors, the cvra has certainly helped make everyone sensitive to their obligations to victims. but i believe that the department and its employees have taken victims' rights

seriously and the cvra have provided us more opportunities to do so. >> last question, the federal notification along with the state notification, are those systems merged? >> no, they are not. >> do you think they should be? >> i don't think that would work, because the federal system is tied into the electronic case filing system that you have in the united states federal district courts throughout the country. and the state systems are completely different. so i actually think that it's best if we tailor those systems to the states and then to the federal. >> any time has expired. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. >> mr. rothenberg, have there been any cases where the department has sought appellate

review that limited victims' rights under the cvra? >> there have been quite a number of. >> how have those cases been resolved? >> we have -- i don't have specific figures. i could give you some examples. one case in i believe in 2006, we were prosecuting a case in los angeles. it was a russian mob, kidnapping and murder case and the victims' family members wanted to sit in court and the district judge refused to let them do so. we appealed that on mandamus and got a favorable ruling from the 9th circuit and were able to get the victims in there. it was a very important aspect for the victims. i recall one of the victims had never heard the details of her husband's last moments and she

was sitting in court and while one of the defendants was on the stand and she finally heard exactly what happened and that was important to her. she was quoted in the press subsequently saying that. in a recent prosecution of an environmental crime in the district of montana, we, again, wanted to have some of the victims present in court to hear testimony. and the district court refused. we successfully used the mandamus and got the court to let the victims appear. >> what were the courts' reasons for excluding them? >> in both of those cases, there was concern that it would be inappropriate for someone who could be a witness hear the testimony prior to their own appearance on the witness stand. but we successfully argued that

that was not a serious concern in those cases and the victims deserved to be present during the prosecution. >> in your testimony, you noted that the department victims' rights ombudsman has investigated 25 complaints about the department of justice personnel. can you describe the issues raised in those complaints and how are they resolved? >> i believe virtually all of those were resolved to the satisfaction of the victims. in many cases, those were simple errors, such as at some point, someone's name fell off the list of notifications for restitution order or something like that. may have been clerical errors that once the v.r.o. and the system got into place, it worgd exactly as it should -- it worked exactly as it should. >> can you tell us how the department developed the nation wide victim notification system.

>> actually, the nation wide -- you mean the state or the federal one? >> the federal. >> it was done in conjunction with the executive office of u.s. attorneys, because the u.s. attorneyso offices prosecute most of these cases. and if i recall correctly there was a needs assessment done first and then they had some technology consultants in there. when we start talking technology, that's the end of expertise but i will get you some information. >> and does that federal victim notification system have interoperability with the many state notification systems? >> no, it does not. >> and is there an effort to make that interoperable or is that desirable or undesirable thing to do? >> i'm not sure it would be desirable since we are connected to a different -- we use different members of the committee nisms and going