slugger as we say in nebraska has sold more than 100 million bats making it without question the most popular bat brand in baseball history. the louisville slugger continues to dominate the game in both wood and aluminum bat categories with 60% of all major league players currently using the louisville slugger. because the average major league baseball player goes through more than 100 bats in a season, each year more than one million bats are made at its factory in louisville. . the factory is more than just your average factory and carries with it an air of tradition and nostalgia from hall of fame players like babe ruth,

lugarring and even today's pros like kevin and derek jeeter. in 1996 the louisville shrugger museum and factory was opened to the public and it's hard to miss the museum's 120-foot-tall louisville shrugger that leans onto the brick building. once inside of the museum, tourists are able to witness the entire process, creating a wooden bat from northern white ash or maple, test different model bats in a batting cage and read upon the history of players in the past. in recent years louisville shrugger has gone far beyond bats, providing performance technology in the form of fielding and batting gloves, helmets, catcher's gear, equipment bags, training aids and accessories. in addition to its onfield performance products, louisville shruggers provide personalized collectible bats, perhaps we'll see one here soon.

i would like to commend the hillerich and bradsby company on their 125th anniversary of the louisville shrugger and applaud the great success they've had with onfield performance products. i would also like to recognize congressman yarmuth of connecticut for his work on this resolution -- kentucky for his work on this resolution and hope that many more vacationers will enjoy the museum and factory tour experience. i stand in support of this legislation and hope that my colleagues will join me. mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. >> mr. speaker, i would yield four minutes to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentleman from new jersey and i also thank the gentleman from nebraska for his kind remarks. mr. speaker, i rise today in celebration of a genuine american icon, a piece of history that was instrumental in the development of the great american passtime. a tool that helped make ball

players into heroes and a treasure that gave every kid with a dream the chance to hold a piece of the big league in had their very hands. today we consider h.res. 314 a resolution to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the louisville shrugger the official bat of major league baseball, manufactured by hillerich and bradsby in their beautiful factory in downtown louisville, kentucky. the louisville shrugger is a none mouse with the crack of a bat on a summer afternoon. 80% of the inductees in the baseball hall of fame swung a louisville shrugger. 60% of all major leaguers do the same today. on the label of every louisville shrugger is the number 125, white ash trees grown in pennsylvania and new york, wood known for its strength and resiliency is graded at 125. now that number takes on additional significance, marking

125 years since the first louisville shrugger was produced. the story goes that back in 1884, pete browning, the star player on the louisville eclipse baseball club, broke his bat in the middle of a game. 17-year-old bud hillerich invited browning back to his father's woodworking shop with the promise of a new hand-crafted bat. hillerich's creation suited browning perfectly and he had three hits the very next game. bragging about his fortune to his teammates who soon swarmed hillerich's woodworking shop to get a bat of their own. after a little persuading, bud hillerich convinced his father to do bat making full time. they made the change to louisville shruggers. thousands of ball players of every age have since swung the louisville shrugger.

many since have swung the bat. each player specified the measurements for the bat they wanted and louisville slugger developed a unique model that was their own. ted williams, one of the greatest hitters of all time, personally traveled to the factory in lieuville throughout his career to pick out his bats. not by coincidence, he broke the coveted 400 batting average barrier in three seasons and had a career average of .344. ted acknowledged that he had a little help. famously saying, i'd have been a 290-hitter without a louisville slugger. this is a commemoration of the creation of the louisville slugger and the success of hillerich and bradsby, a company that remains committed to louisville after 125 years. that translates into a lasting impact on our region with the jobs the company creates, its factory and museum, and the economic benefit that comes from thousands of visitors who travel to louisville every year to see the place where the slugger is

made. louisville used to take great pride in the fact that the shrugger is created in our own backyard. and all of us should take great pride in the company that was built 125 years ago on the american spirit of entrepreneurship and is itself now one of our great american icons. i'm honored to celebrate the legacy of the louisville slugger and the hillerich and bradsby company and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska. mr. pallone: thank you and i -- mr. terry: thank you, and i think for the tv viewers it's important to note that mr. yarmuth isn't that short, it's that the bat's that big. with that, mr. speaker, we have no further speakers, mr. pallone, i'll yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i have no additional speakers, either, mr. speaker, so i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the question is, will the house swenled the rules and agree to house resolution 314. 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 and the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to h.r. 3663 relating to the accreditation requirements for pharmacies of supplying durable medical equipment under medicare. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3663, a bill to amend title 18 of the association security act -- social security act to delay the act on which the accreditation requirement under the medicare program applies to suppliers of durable medical equipments at our pharmacies. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, and the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: and, mr. speaker, i yield to myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. presently under medicare, pharmacies supply medicare beneficiaries with durable medical equipment or d.m.e. such as cains, crutches and diabetes testing strips. pharmacists not only provide access to these items but also provide critical services such as counseling on patient compliance and adherence which often results in improved health outcomes. in spite of the important and positive role that many pharmacists play in the medicare d.m.e. program, in the past there's been a lot of fraud and abuse that has occurred in the world of d.m.e. supplies. congress stepped in and applied new requirements on d.m.e.

suppliers that would help that. one of these requirements is require suppliers of durable medical equipment to attain quality accreditation by october 1, 2009, which is thursday, tomorrow. requiring d.m.e. suppliers to be acredited would help ensure that the integrity of the medicare program is protected and make sure that beneficiaries have access to quality services and supplies. unfortunately as pharmacists have tried to comply with this new requirement, those charged with providing accreditation have been unable to keep up with the demand. and according to a back log exists, there's little hope of having them completed by this week's deadline. if we do nothing, mr. speaker, countless pharmacies across the country will be left in limbo, possibly closing problems for beneficiaries seeking to access the d.m.e. supplies that they need. congress should do everything it can to avoid this kind of disruption. the health reform bill provides some relief in this area but its

details are still being worked out and that's why i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense measure which will temporarily delay the accreditation requirement from taking effect. congress can help fine tune the health care reform legislation to address any remaining problems after january 1 which is the new deadline. i want to thank my colleague on the energy and commerce committee, mr. space of ohio, for spear heading this effort, as well as representatives jo ann emerson, mar rainy barry. and i would reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: i rise in support of h.r. 3663, a bill to delay the date for accreditation of durable medical equipment suppliers for 90 days. i want to thank my colleague from ohio, mr. space, for bringing this legislation to the floor today to correct a

provision in the medicare improvements for patients and providers act of 2008. that which was approved by the house last year requires suppliers of durable medical equipment, d.m.e., to get accreditation before applying to the centers for medicare and medicaid services, to meet the quality standards before being awarded a contract under the medicare d.m.e. competitive bidding program. the law carved out an exemption for certain physicians and other treating practitioners and gave the secretary of h.h.s. the authority to exempt others. by regulation, c.m.f. determined that pharmacists would fall under this exemption and not be required to obtain accreditation in order to sell durable medical equipment to consumers. brick and mortar pharmacies, however, would be subject to c.m.s. accreditation under the c.m.s. rules. the bill would fix this problem

and extend the period of time for c.m.s. to complete the accreditation process for those pharmacists -- pharmacies that have filed their paperwork. the bill also includes language clarifying the 90-day accreditation extension, would not apply to those suppliers wishing to participate in competitive bidding for certain durable medical equipment. the issue that's facing us here today is that only about 43% of the pharmacies have actually had their inspection and review, leaving 50% of them out there dangling because of the back log from the inspections and so hopefully within the next 90 days from this extension we'll be able to get caught up, all of them will be able to continue to sell durable medical goods to the patients who require such goods. so therefore i encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes for this, again i want to thank mr.

space and chairman waxman and ranking member barton, mr. pallone, for acting so quickly on this one, mr. space and i brought it up last week for attention. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i would yield four minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. space, who is the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. space, is recognized for four minutes. mr. space: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3663, legislation that i deprooed -- introduced with my friend, mr. terry from nebraska, which will delay implementation of accreditation requirements imposed on america's pharmacies, who offer service to medicare beneficiaries. i think that my colleague from nebraska, as well as my colleague and chairman pallone from new jersey have done an ample job explaining the predicament that we find ourselves in with regards to the accreditation and sure the bond requirements that will be imposed effective tomorrow and

i'd like to extend my gratitude to chairman waxman, ranking member barton, of course chairman pallone and others as well for their assistance in providing this with the prompt forum for consideration. what i'd like to do is spend a moment explaining what the implications of failure to act may be on the millions of medicare beneficiaries across the country. in ohio's 18th congressional district we have -- it's an entirely rural part of the country, we have some of our countries, morgan county, for example, is served by one pharmacy. one pharmacist in the entire county. if that pharmacy, for example, were to lose its ability to provide things like diabetic test strips to its patients, those patients would be required to drive up to an hour just to get to a pharmacy where they

sell those. the net effect of that would be that people will not be able to buy diabetic test strips. people that need them desperately. one of the issues that has been lost in the ongoing debate regarding health care reform in this country has been the challenges that rural america faces in accessing adequate health care. as is the case with so many other issues, whether it be of access to technology, access to education, access to infrastructure, we have in rural america suffer from an access to health care -- from inaxe sess to health care. we can't afford to suffer any further. this legislation will help overcome one of those challenges. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for prompt passage today and i think it's also worth noting that this issue is addressed in h.r. 3200,

but because of this house's intent to thoroughly deliberate that legislation, we've not been able to see passage to this point. i look forward to working with my colleague from nebraska and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in resolving this issue promptly. i yield back the balance of my time. . mr. terry: at this time i'd like to yield one of the co-chairs of the pharmacy caucus in the house, the gentleman from kansas, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for four minutes. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman from nebraska, the gentleman from ohio for this legislation. i am a supporter of h.r. 3663. in kansas and across america, the relationship between pharmacists and patients is a vital part of the way we deliver health care. patients depend upon pharmacists for information and counseling to ensure they receive quality products and medical services. my mom and dad are 92 and 93 and

still live in my hometown of plainville, kansas, a town of about 1,900 people. my dad can be stubborn about going to the doctor because the doc may tell him he's not 100% healthy. but my dad has morning coffee with our pharmacist and he keeps a watchful eye on my dad's health. it determines weather plainville and other kansas towns survive and flourish and we must protect and foster these health facilities. the center for medicare and medicaid services has required pharmacist that provide diabetes testing supplies and other medical equipment to obtain considered as read days by october 1, 2009, in order to dispense these important supplies to medicare patients. h.r. 3663 as we have heard will extend this accreditation deadline to january 1 and give congress the time it needs to better address this issue. many kansans live in areas with too few doctors and nurses to meet their primary care needs.

at the same time the average age of kansans is getting older. often pharmacists are kansans' most direct link for health information and counseling and the only place for miles that we can obtain much needed medical equipment to keep us healthy. however, according to c.m.s.'s own estimates, 25,000 medical equipment suppliers will exit medicare programs due to this new accreditation requirement. we should be encouraging our pharmacies and other medical professionals to provide care in their communities not burden them with cost prohibitive regulatory requirements that do not increase patient safety or expand access for those patients. in conclusion, mr. speaker, i urge passage of this bill to protect medicare's beneficiaries to access to necessary medications and supplies from their trusted pharmacists. i yield back. mr. terry: i ask unanimous consent to allow the ways and means committee, wally herger, to manage our remaining time.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. terry: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i will have to continue to reserve at this time. i may have additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3663, which very simply delays the quality accreditation requirements for pharmacies until no sooner than january 1, 2010. without this legislation, accreditation requirement would go into effect tomorrow and many pharmacies would not be able to supply our medicare beneficiaries with needed durable medical equipment such as diabetes testing strips or canes. i heard from a number of independent pharmacies in my rural northern california district who have expressed

serious concerns about the cost of complying with this new regulation. in many cases these pharmacies are the only source of basic medical supplies for miles around and they are already strapped for cash because of reimbursement charges at the federal and state level. along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i have taken the position that state regulated pharmacies should be completely exempted from the accreditation requirement. at a minimum i believe all members can support a short delay in the deadline. certain eligible professionals such as physicians are exempt from their requirements for d.m.e. supplies to be accredited as the compliant with quality standards. although pharmacies themselves would be exempt for purposes of d.m.e., it's the physical

pharmacy that has the medicare provider number and the center for medicare and medicaid services, c.m.s., did not exempt pharmacies from the accreditation requirement. mr. speaker, we must make it a priority to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare and we need strong quality standards for d.m.a. suppliers. there are simply too many cases of fly-by-night suppliers who have defrauded the medicare program and the taxpayers by submitting millions of dollars in fake claims for power wheelchairs and other high end d.m.e. however most pharmacies do very little d.m.e. business, mostly involving small items like diabetes testing supplies. in addition, pharmacies are regulated at the state level so those that nange in -- engage in

questionable activities can be identified and prosecuted. i'm confident that the quality accreditation program with a reasonable exems for pharmacies will great -- exemption for pharmacies will greatly reduce the $1 billion medicare spent in 2007 in improper payments for medical equipment and supplies. i will continue to support the program. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i'm still expecting additional speakers. does the gentleman on the other side have additional speakers? mr. herger: i do. mr. pallone: if i could reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from georgia, dr. price, so much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia, mr.

price, is recognized. mr. price: i thank my friend from california for leading on the issue of health care and for yielding me time. i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, as a physician i have passionately worked since the moment i began in public service and even before then for positive solutions in the area of health care. solutions that allow patients to have the highest quality of care. and in debate here on the floor of the house, especially in the area of health care, americans are anxious for open and honest deliberation and discussions. which is why what occurred on the floor last night was so very, very troubling. mr. speaker, as you may know, mr. grayson, representative grayson, from florida came to the floor in a speech and said that the republican plan for health care is for americans to, and i quote, die quickly, unquote. in fact he concluded his remarks by saying, quote, remember the republican plan.

don't get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly. unquote. mr. speaker, it's that type of of presentation that debases and denigrates our proceedings here in the house and it does a disservice to all americans. i have a privileged resolution that i'm not going to introduce today, but it's a resolution that parallels the previous resolution that was handled here in the house that calls on the house to recognize that that kind of behavior is disapproved of by the house of representatives. but in an effort to try to give the representative from california -- from florida, mr. grayson, an opportunity to recognize that his comments were in fact a breach of decorum. -- decorum, we respectfully request that he apologize to our leader. i call on all democrat members of the house and all democrat leaders to demand that he apologize. just as one of our members did

earlier. mr. speaker, the american people want open and honest discussion, yes. but they want respectful discussion. we call on mr. grayson to apologize. mr. speaker, it's the right thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i would continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve much -- reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i don't have any further speakers. perhaps i'll just close and yield back the remainder of my time. mr. speaker, this is a good commonsense bill with broad support from both democrats and republicans. this is an example of the way that health care policy should be handled in this congress. i urge an aye vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: in closing i just want to mention, my colleague, mr. stark, from the ways and means committee wanted to speak in favor of this bill. but was unable to be here. i also neglected to thank mr. terry who was the lead republican sponsor of the legislation. at this time i yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3663. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to

suspend the rules and pass the senate bill, s. 1289. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 128 9, an act to improve title 18 of the united states code. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: 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. mr. schiff: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i introduced the foreign evidence request efficiency act in july with my colleague, representative dan lungren from california. the bill before us today, s. 1289, is an identical companion bill introduced by senators whitehouse, session, and leahy and passed by the senate on july 10, 2009. i'd like to commend senator

whitehouse for his leadership on this issue and thank him for the opportunity to work with him. given our shared experience as former federal prosecutors to address this matter. mr. speaker, as we know crime knows no borders. a fraud committed in france may involve banks and financial records located here in the united states. modern technology links the countries of the world more and more and the need for international cooperation in fighting crime increases. the u.s. routinely assists foreign law enforcement agencies in the investigations in the same way that foreign law enforcement entities assist the united states with its investigations. when a foreign law enforcement agency makes a request for evidence in the united states such as financial records or internet records or other evidence, u.s. attorneys review the requests and upon approval seek warrants for the evidence. when the evidence is collected, it is then transmitted to foreign authorities. the current process, though, is very cumbersome.

under existing law international requests for evidence are processed under civil practice rules that require prosecutors to file in every district in which evidence or witness may be found. for example, evidence sought for one criminal matter may involve financial records housed in banks in several different federal judicial districts in several different states. internet records in more than one district and other evidence spread over many districts and states. so under current law over a dozen different u.s. attorneys offices could have to work on an evidence request for a single case. several district courts would also have to be involved. this process is inefficient. it's burdensome. and makes little sense for federal prosecutors across the country or for the interest of justice. the foreign evidence request efficiency act would rectify this situation by allowing foreign evidence requests to be handled centrally, ideally by

one or two u.s. attorney offices. specifically under the proposal a legitimate request for assistance can be filed in the district of columbia, in any of the districts in which any of the several records or witnesses are located, or any district in which there is a related federal criminal case already being conducted. . courts will continue to make sure that these meet the same standards as those required in domestic cases. but by streamlining the evidence collection process, the u.s. will be able to more quickly respond to evidence requests. these earth -- efforts will assist us with our investigations as foreign authorities will be urged to respond in kind to our evidence requests in a speedy manner. in addition to current authority to respond to foreign evidence requests that's found in a patchwork of treaties, the inherent power of the courts and

analogous domestic statutes this legislation would provide clear statutory authority in one place. the legislation before us is strongly supported by the department of justice. the department believes the changes in this bill will facilitate the ability of the united states to assist in foreign investigations, prosecutions and related proceedings involving organized crime, trafficking in child pornography, identity theft and all other serious crimes. mr. speaker, the important changes in this bill will greatly improve our crime-fighting abilities and that of our allies. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: he i rise in support of s. 1289, the foreign evidence request efficiency act of 2009. i'd like to commend congressman

schiff and congressman lungren for sponsoring the companion bill in the house, h.r. 3133. s. 1289 improves the ability of the united states to assist foreign governments with criminal investigations. ing, organized crime, international child pornography, utilize a complex web of bank accounts, internet sites and other techniques to hide their illegal criminal acts. these foreign conspiracies often use financial institutions and internet providers across the globe including in the united states. foreign governments enlist the assistance of federal prosecutors to gather evidence from u.s. companies. these foreign governments routinely do the same for us in their countries. unfortunately this process is not as easy as it may seem. under current american law, foreign evidence requests must be processed in the districts where the evidence resides. so an international fraud scheme that funneled money through a

dozen banks across the united states would require assistance from a dozen u.s. attorneys' offices and federal court. this imposes an unnecessary and costly burden on our criminal justice system. the foreign evidence request efficiency act simple fice this process by allowing foreign evidence requests to be streamlined through one single u.s. attorney's office or perhaps a few offices if necessary. the act amends federal criminal code to allow evidence requests to be processed through a court with jurisdiction over the evidence. including where a bank or communication provider is located. under current law, only courts with jurisdiction over the offense may grant an order for disclosure of records. s. 1289 does not change the type of evidence that may be requested by foreign governments nor weaken the procedures for obtaining the evidence. the act reduces paperwork, red tape and bureaucracy for obtaining the evidence. the bill also allows prosecutors to process foreign evidence

requests more quickly. delays in evidence collection can mean the difference between shutting down a criminal enterprise or watching it fade into the shadows. so i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, may i inquire of my colleague from texas how many speakers he has remaining? mr. poe: we have one, mr. lungren, if he gets here. other than that, he's the only other speaker. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: well, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: yield? mr. poe: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'd be happy to engage in a colloquy with my colleague if it would help mr. len grun, appreciate his support on this legislation. i've enjoyed the opportunity to

work with mr. lungren on this and of course i want to particularly acknowledge my colleague in the senate, shell don -- sheldon whitehouse for, for his leadership. i'm hoping this will take some of the burden off the u.s. attorney offices in this country and thereby i hope we'll see reciprocity in these other countries that they act expeditiously and i'd be happy to yield to my colleague. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as a former judge, sometimes bureaucracy gets in the way of justice because of the fact that there are so many entities involved. and stream lining the process in this case or in this legislation will allow foreign governments to help us on international organized crime rings, protect the dignity of the constitution as well. i do not expect that mr. lungren will be here, so i would yield

back to the gentleman. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i know if mr. lungren were here he'd make some unnecessarily ungracious remarks in my direction, they are reciprocated. i thank him for his work and, mr. speaker, i urge passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1289. 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 and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1727 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1727, a bill to establish a national criminal arsonist and criminal bomber

registry program and establish guidelines and incentives for states, territories and tribes to participate in such programs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members 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. mr. schiff: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the managing arson through criminal history act, the match act, and i'm very proud to join congresswoman boneow mack in sponsoring this legislation and to my colleague from california who has led the charge on this for several years now, i want to congratulate you on your perseverance. this you, i think, will be a very important powerful tool in bringing arsonists to justice. our collaboration on this issue stems from a painful

understanding of the desk station that arson can cause -- devastation that arson has caused and can cause in both of our districts. as we debate this bill today, firefighters are still mopping up the last vestiges of the station fire which has burned thousands and thousands of acres in thing an less forest over the past month and resulted in the tragic death of two firefighters. the fire was deliberately set and the perpetrator is still at large. the bill before us today would create a nationwide registry of arsonists to help fire investigators find arsonists and prevent additional fires. because arsonists commit their crimes in secret, arson is among the most difficult of crimes to investigate. according to f.b.i. statistics, only about 18% of arsons from 2008 have been cleared by an arrest. in the wake of a fire, investigators are faced with the daunting challenge of piecing together evidence from the scorched tract of land or a

house. the station fire, for example, is a 250-square-mile crime scene. investigators have isolated where they believe the blaze originated but there have been no arrests thus far despite the offer of a $150,000 reward. i know from first-hand experience the difficulty of an arson investigation. when i was an assistant u.s. attorney in los angeles in the late 1980's and early 1990's i prosecuted an individual who started fires in the forest. the arsonist followed a pattern. he used a distinct incendiary device made from a cigarette with matches taped around it. he would drive through the forest, throw the cigarette with the matches taped around it into the brush, the cigarette would burn down to the matches, ignite the matches which would ignite the brush. the cigarette was like a slow fuse. by the time the brush caught on fire, he was far away from the point of origin of the fire.

catching someone like that who doesn't have a traditional motive to set fire or commit a crime is extremely challenging. eventually using video surveillance, law enforcement made an arrest. we discovered in the course of the investigation that the suspect had a history of setting fires using the same distinct incendiary device made from a cigarette with matches taped around it. we didn't discover that information in an electronic database or even in the suspect's criminal record. the information was eventually found before the trial stored in a box in one of his former parole officer's basement. if we had a national arsonist registry at the time we would have known of convicted arsonist who lived in the region. we would have known their mode us op rand aye. we might have been able to stop him from setting fires. keeping records in your basement is not a sound investigative law enforcement strategy. the national arsonist registry created through the match act is.

the match act would create a national registry of arsonists that is similar but more extensive than what states have right now. currently three states, including california, maintain such registries but they're very limited. arsonists can and do cross state lines to start fires. they don't necessarily obtain updated information about the arsonist's current address, where they go to school and a myriad of other pieces of information that could be useful to investigators. under the match act, a convicted arsonist would be required to register with a state in which they reside and provide updated biographical information along with a photograph and information on the cars they own. no information in this registry would be publicly available. the information would only be accessible to law enforcement and fire investigators. last year the congressional budget office scored the cost of implementing the act at $17 million over five years. that is if we fully fund the small authorization to yuff set the costs to states in setting

up the problem. given the millions and millions we spend fighting wildfires and the billions, literally billions, in property damage due to arson, this is a reasonable investment to save lives in the future. the house passed this legislation overwhelmingly in 2007 but unfortunately it was never enacted, it didn't clear the senate. as my constituents can attest, though, the problem of ason is not going away and so we press on for this bill that will assist investigators and we hope prehe vent arson fires in the future. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. poe from texas. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i rise in support of h.r. 1727, the managing arson through criminal history act of 2009. referred to as the match act. i commend my colleagues from

california, congresswoman bono mack and congressman schiff, for their hard work on this legislation. my colleagues from california know better than anyone the devastation that arson causes. california station fire has now burned over 160,000 acres or 251 square miles. the cause for fighting this fire alone -- cost for fighting this fire alone stands at $82 million. the price tag is expected to go over $100 million. 89 homes have been burned and sadly two firefighters have been killed. investigators now believe this fire was intentionally set based upon evidence found near the fire's origin. many arsonists begin by starting small fires and escalate to larger and larger fires to satisfy their excitement. yet only 17.1% of arson offenses result in convictions nationwide. unfortunately the evidence needed to convict these arsonists is often destroyed by

the fire itself. and as arsonists become more sophisticated in their techniques, identifying and prosecuting them becomes more challenging. each year an estimated 260,000 fires are caused by arson. that's right. 267,000. in recent years arson has been used to burn churches and used by violent activists to protest urban sprawl but the ongoing threat remains, those who set fires to get a rush and feed a exullings. we call those folks arsonists. fires have not only caused recent property damage throughout the country and takening of human lives, not only in california but this year, two houston firefighters have been killed fighting fires. we may never be able to prevent wildfires but we can implement tools to help prevent arsonists, particularly serial arsonists from illewding punishment. this helps capture them.

the match act creates a national arson registry and requires criminal arsonists to report where they live, where they work and, yes, even where they go to school. in addition, the act requires the national database to include finger and palm print and an up to date photograph. the act limits access to information contained in the registry to only law enforcement and fire officials. it exempts juveniles who are jude cated delinquent from the registry. the match act will assist law enforcement officials with identifying and apprehending arsonists. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i yield my colleague as much time as she wishes, my colleague from california, mrs. bono mack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. bono: i am pleased also to

rise in support of the managingarson through criminal history or match act, h.r. 1727. as a member from california, i was heartened by the support that our delegation received from this house during the station fire that recently swept through our state, tragically killing two heroic firefighters. as many of you know and have just heard, some of these fires are being investigated asarson. in what is addly becoming an annual occurrence, we are faced with the threat of catastrophic wildfires that cause millions of dollars in message and threaten life. that's when we learn the first spark of these fires were caused by arsonists that our fears were realized, that someone would spark a fire. these events are reminders with the urgency we need to act in passing h.r. 1727 as this legislation was inspired by events in my county, riverside county, which i'm proud to represent. nearly three years ago my community was devastated by the

a fire, also an arson-caused fire that caused -- cost five forrest fighters their lives. i'm anxious to provide all the tools and support we can to combat despicable acts like arson. multiple conversations and meet wgs firefighters and chiefs in my district led to the creation of this bill. they told me how essential database would provide them with invaluable information in tracking arsonists. more especially serialarsonnists. more help is needed in the tracking of this dangerous crime. even though arson fires account for the majority of fires in the u.s., the arrest and conviction rate is only 20%. it is our duty as members of congress to provide the tools and infrastructure we can to aid in both the prevention of this crime and speedy apprehension of those who choose to commit it. it is my sincere belief that the match act will make a meaningful difference in the way we approach and deal with arson

offend he by establishing a registry for law enforcement. i would like to thank chairman conyers and scott and ranking member smith and gohmert of the judiciary committee. they worked to ensure this legislation was expeditiously moved through the legislative process as it -- as concerns were addressed. i would also like to thank the house leadership on both sides for their hard work in bringing the bill before us today. finally i would like to thank my fellow californiaians, dear friend, adam schiff, for his partnership. can i think of no better colleague in the house of representatives to work with than i found in adam schiff. i thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of this critically important bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, may i inquire how many more speakers my colleague from texas has? mr. poe: we have no other speakers. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, representative bono mack, for all her work on this issue. it's been a pleasure working together. i think when we had the bill come up in committee last session and the burbank fire chief testified, he pointed out really how this bill will be of great service to investigators by pointing to the case of someone who was a serial arsonist in new york who set fire to many car ports for whatever reason, whatever perverse thrill as my colleague from texas pointed out, some of these arsonists seem to get by setting fires. he was well-known to authorities in new york and he moved to california. where he was unknown. and when there were a series of car port fires in california, california authorities didn't necessarily connect it to what happened in new york. with a national registry we can connect these events and we can

connect the dots. not only i hope put away some of these arsonists, but maybe more importantly deter arsonist who is if they know that they are being tracked and are being followed by this registry will think twice before they set additional fires. so with that i want to once again thank my colleague and urge the house to support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1727. 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. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. schiff: i move to suspend

the rules and pass house resolution 757. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house resolution 757, resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a national day of remembrance for homicide victims. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: 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 resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. schiff: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, this resolution expresses support for the goals and ideals of the national day of remembrance for homicide victims. on friday, september 25, 2009, the third annual observance of the national day of ref brans for homicide victims was held in washington, d.c., and across the country. this year's observance was organized by the national

organization of parents of murdered children, mothers against drunk driving, and the maryland crime victims resource center. every year families lose loved ones to senseless acts of violence. along with their lovered ones these families lose hopes and dreams for the future. not only are mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers affected by the sudden loss of a family member, the lives of friends, co-workers, and neighbors can also be changed forever. in 2008 alone over 14,000 individuals lost their lives as a result of violent homicide. over half of these murdered victims were killed by acquaintances such as a neighbor, friend, or boyfriend. after the initial shock as friends and neighbors resume their daily lives, family members are left to deal with the grief and loss and become overwhelmed with picking up the pieces of their lives. the national day of remembrance for murder victims acknowledges the long-term trauma families and friends experience after a loved one is murdered.

and focuses on the importance of providing support, guidance, and counseling to survivors of homicide. while families deal with their grief, they are also confronted with trying to find some sense of justice through the criminal justice system. the complexities and delays resolving a criminal case frequently add to their feelings of anger and resentment. the national day of remembrance sends a powerful message to these families and friends alike that we as a nation remember their loss, honor their courage, and are committed to helping them move on with their lives. the national day of remembrance reminds us that murder impacts each and every one of us and every community across the country. this day also reminds us to rededicate ourselves to working to prevent the violence that destroys lives and devastates families. i'd like to thank the lead co-sponsors of this resolution, donna edwards of maryland and ted poe of texas for their leadership in making sure that last week's national day of remembrance is honored by

congress. i urge my colleagues to support this important resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. house resolution 757 honors a national day of remembrance for homicide victims. sadly thousands of lives are lost due to homicide every year in our nation. surviving parents, spouses, family and friends courageously rebuild their lives while searching for answers and closure for the tragic death of someone they cared about. i want to commend my friend, the gentlelady from maryland, donna edwards, for introducing this resolution. she has a long-time history of working with victims and victims' families even before she came to our institution, the house of representatives. this national day of remembrance for homicide victims honors the lives who -- of those who are lost to murder. it also commits communities,

agencies, and other groups toward the goal of rebuilding the survivor's lives and preventing these tragedies in the future. since 2000, more than 114,000 americans have been murdered in our nation. it is important we remind survivors, family survivors that we have not forgotten their loved ones and that they are not alone. the broad bipartisan support for this day of remembrance demonstrates that we are united in our commitment to comfort sufferers and prevent the violence that leads to these tragedies. this resolution also brings attention to the disturbing issue of spousal or partner abuse and homicides. on average three women per day are murdered by their current or former husbands. from 1976 to 2005 more than 64% of female homicide victims in the united states were murdered by an intimate partner. according to the national institute of justice, intimate

partner homicide has declined significantly in the past 25 years. the n.i.j. cautions, however, that although these declines are truly significant, the statistics may mask the important fact that women are substantially more likely than men to be murdered-by intimate partners. supporting the goaltenders and ideals of a national day of ref brans for homicide victims strengthens the resolve of agencies, communities, and families and people in our country against homicide in our nation. i urge all my colleagues to support this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from maryland, donna edwards, the lead sponsor of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. i would like to thank also my dear friend and colleague, chairman john conyers, for bringing this important resolution to the floor. of house resolution 757, the

national day of remembrance for homicide victims recognizes the loss and the courage of homicide victims across this country not just in one year but for the many years in which families, community members take the time to rebuild their lives. i'd also like to thank my colleague, ted poe of texas, for taking the lead with me in making this resolution truly bipartisan in nature. because as we know the question of homicide is not one that is partisan. this resolution is about honoring the lives of those who -- those lives that have been lost to homicide. i particularly want to focus on the women and children who have lost their lives to intimate partner homicide in our country. in my state of maryland at least 48 women and children lost their lives to intimate partner homicide in the period from july, 2007, to july, 2008.

nationally the centers for disease control and prevention estimate that three women per day are murdered by their current or former partner, boyfriend, or spouse. statistically the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is when she attempts to leave a violent relationship. from working firsthand with victims of domestic violence in shelters, in service programs, and as co-founder and executive director of the national network to end domestic violence, i know this statistic is true and it's more than a statistic, it's a reality for so many women and children. so when people ask why doesn't she just leave, those of us who have done this work for a long time know exactly why. and it's because of the risk of death not an imagined fear, but a true risk. intimate partner violence is the second leading cause of traumatic death for pregnant women. the impact of witnessing domestic violence especially the homicide of a parent is devastating for children.

it is my hope that this resolution will begin a dialogue about intimate partner violence and progress to discussing and devising solutions to address this epidemic. intimate partner violence is something that impacts all our communities. and i know there have been several cases of such violence where i live and i'm sure that's the case for every congressional district across this nation. this year in my congressional district, a woman was shot tragically to death outside of her church in silver spring as she was going inside to worship on sunday and other worshipers were gathered for the service. in march, 2003, ernestine was shot to death in my hometown of objectionen hill by her estranged husband less than 24 hours after he promised in court to leave her alone. her sister is working hard to bring more attention to this epidemic so more people don't have to suffer and more sisters

don't have to be victims. it's so easy for people to think that intimate partner homicide is something that happens to someone else. someone who looks different, someone who has a different educational background, or someone who just fell in with the wrong person, but a victim of domestic violence and intimate partner violence and homicide can be anyone's sister, mother, aunt, friend, co-worker, and of course the other thousands of victims of homicide. . our own lieutenant governor in maryland lost his cousin, kathy brown, to intimate partner violence just this last summer. his cousin was shot and killed in her home by her abuser. lieutenant governor brown has worked in maryland along with governor martin o'malley to make sure that our state laws were changed to prevent this kind of

violent homicide. so many survivors and their families in this country have turned their tragedy and pain to healing and advocacy. our own lieutenant governor is an example of such tireless and selfless advocacy. i ask all of us to take the time today to reach out to someone who may be in a violent situation and lend your support and friendship. it could save their lives. i also ask that we take this day to remember all victims of homicide, all victims of intimate partner homicide. and we must do what we can to stop this pattern at a young age. if other forms of violent abuse -- abusive violence are included, our young children suffer as well. we must be more aggressive in addressing the problem of violence so it doesn't turn to homicide. i'd like to thank all of our co-sponsors and i'd like to say that, mr. speaker, it's time for us to recognize the tragic cost of homicide to all of our families and for this congress

and this nation to turn our attention to their support. i'd like to recognize the many organizations who have supported this resolution, including the national network to end domestic violence, the maryland network against domestic violence, the national partnership for women and families, legal momentum, the family violence prevention fund and our own local anti-violence organization. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. poe point reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, may i inquire how many speakers my colleague from texas has remaining? mr. poe: i'm prepared to close, there are no other speakers. mr. schiff: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. point poe i yield myself such time as i may consume -- mr. poe: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is an important recognition

we do as an organization, as a body, to recognize the fact that throughout this country there are families that have suffered the loss of someone they love and they care about and it's all because of violence. as my friend and colleague from maryland, ms. edwards, has pointed out, many times that violence occurs in the home. it starts with verbal abuse then physical abuse and then sometimes results in a homicide. and of all places where a person should be safe in our country it's in their home. whether it's a spouse or whether it's a child. and because of the epidemic in my opinion of violence in the home, more and more americans and spouses especially suffer those consequences and those consequences lead to their death by the hands of someone that claims they love them. and it's important that we remember those people who are victims of crime. it's been said that when a murder occurs the killer steals from the victim everything they were and everything they will

be. that's the tragedy. and families of homicide victims never get over it. i know mr. schiff in his experience in the u.s. attorney's office and my experience as a criminal court judge and prosecutor. families of homicide victims think about the death of their loved one every day. not a day goes by that they don't think about it. and they think about it every day forever. that's the tragedy they live with. so we as a nation need to raise the awareness and the importance of these families and recognize that those people who have lost family members are americans that need special recognition, special comfort, from us, so i commend my friend, ms. edwards from maryland, for sponsoring this resolution. i'm proud to be a co-author of this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. i had the experience recently of being called up for jury duty in los angeles and called up for a criminal case and sat through really the entire process which i hadn't done in quite many years. it was a murder case and what was striking to me, i was not called into the box, so i never became a juror, but what was striking to me is during the process they asked each and every juror whether they thought they could sit fairly on the case before them. this particular case involved two victims of -- two people who were murdered. one who was a 16-year-old girl. and it was striking to me both how many perspective jurors had a family member or close friend who had been the victim of violence, who had been murdered or raped, how many also who

could so relate to the circumstances that they felt they couldn't be fair and impartial. but it was extraordinary, there wasn't a single person really in the jury box that hadn't been touched in some way by violent crime. and i want to thank the gentlewoman from maryland for her leadership on this issue and getting us all to take some time to reflect on how violence has touched all of our communities, all of our lives and how we can rededicate ourselves to trying to attack this incredible waste of life. so i thank you, i urge passage of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 757. 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 california rise? mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1333 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1333, a bill to amend chapter 40 of title 18 united states code to exempt the transportation shipment, receipt or importation of explosive materials for delivery to a federally recognized indian tribe or an agency of such a tribe from various federal criminal prohibitions relating to explosives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members 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. mr. schiff: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: h.r. 1333 addresses

a gap in the law of governing the transportation of explosive materials. by giving federally recognized indian tribes the same status already given federal, state and local governments. in 2002 congress passed the safe explosives act which prohibits the transportation, shipment, receipt and importation of explosive materials without specific federal permits or licenses. the act exempts federal, state and local governments from this requirement. but due to an oversight, the exemption does not cover traly prized -- federally recognized indian tribes and their agencies. this bill corrects that oversight. fireworks can play an integral role in the religious and cultural ceremonies of many indian tribes. this bill will facilitate those religious and cultural practices without compromising safety. this act does not exempt indian tribes from complying with safe storage requirements like state agencies, tribes state -- storage requirements. like state agencies, they will still be required by regulations. it enjoys bipartisan support.

i thank the gentleman from arizona for bringing this oversight to the attention of the house and for his hard work on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 1333 makes a simple, technical correction to federal law regulating the transportation and shipment of -- regulating the transportation and shipment of explosives. under current law the federal, state and local governments are exempt from permitting requirements the purchase of shipment of explosive materials including fireworks. indian tribes are not afforded the same exemption under our law. fireworks have been a part of the practices of the tribes in the colorado river indian tribes of arizona for many years. some of these practices involve

cultural and religious beliefs that are very important to the tribe. however, these practices in recent years have been inhibited by the requirements of the safe explosive act of 2002 called the s.e.a. act. it expanded the federal explosive laws to include requires -- requirements that a license or permit be obtained in order to receive explosives. the s.e.a. act established background checks and expanded the categories of persons prohibited from possessing explosives. h.r. 1333 ensures that indian tribes across the country will be able to carry on their same cultural and religious practices that they enjoyed with firework celebrations prior to the enactment of the permitting requirements. it's important to protect the rituals of native americans and afford indian tribes the same treatment under the law as federal, state and local governments currently enjoy. so i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and will reserve the balance of my time. mr. poe: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from arizona, mr. grijalva, for his leadership on this issue and urge passage of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 13333 as amended -- 1333 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 bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to h.res. 739. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 739, resolution honoring the lives and achievements of dr. norman e. borlaug for alleviating world hunger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. berman, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five elective days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, on september 12, 2009, the world

mourned the passing of a great humanitarian. dr. norman borlaug, a world renowned plant scientist dedicate, dedicated his life to ending world hunger and improve the world's food supply. known as the father of the green revolution, dr. borlaug saved more than a billion lives through his pioneering research and scientific innovation. in fact, he has been credited with saving more lives than any other person in history. during his 20 years working in the poorest areas of rural mexico, he developed a strain of, quote, miracle wheat, that drastically increased crop yields and moved the country to sufficiency. in recognition of his tireless efforts, dr. borlaug has received more than 150 international honors. in 1970 he was awarded the nobel peace prize and in 1977 the presidential medal of freedom. two years ago he was presented

with congressional gold medal, america's highest civilian honor. in his acceptance lecture he stated, quote, the first essential component of social justice is adequate food for all mankind. regrettably we remain far from achieving this ideal. while in theory farmers produce enough food to feed every person on the planet, more people are hungry today than ever before. according to new estimates by the united nations, over a billion people will go hungry every day in 2009. almost 1/6 of humanity. we should take this opportunity not only to honor the extraordinary contributions of a true american hero, but to recommit ourselves to the goal of eradicating hunger. i want to recognize and congratulate the sponsor of this resolution, my good friend from iowa, mr. boswell, for introducing the resolution

honoring dr. borlaug and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. mr. speaker, we gather today to honor the life and the accomplishments of dr. norman e. borlaug, a pioneer in the field of the fight against world hunger. the world suffered a great loss with the recent passing of norman borlaug who helped defeat millions of hungry people around the world. he passed from this world bearing the title of father of the green revolution. his breakthrough advancements in wheat production and wheat adaptation have proven vital to those in need. in rural areas around the world, doctor borlaug's tireless efforts -- dr. borlaug's tireless efforts helped feed millions of people.

he spent years to alleviate world hunger through wheat development. in 1944 he accepted an appointment to the cooperative wheat research and production program in mexico, and it was there that he developed high yielding, disease-resistant wheat, otherwise known as miracle wheat, opening the green revolution in global agriculture. in 1970, dr. borlaug was awarded the distinguished nobel peace prize for his work, the only person in the field of agriculture to be bestowed with such an honor. he was later awarded such distinctions as the presidential medal of freedom and the congressional gold medal. dr. borlaug's work was essential to those in need. he never waivered in this fight to fight world hunger, and he continued his efforts until his recent death. it is estimated that dr. borlaug's work helped to save

over one billion people from starvation but nevertheless, he warned that what he helped to achieve was only a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation. and he leaves behind a world in which many people still struggle to find enough to eat. mr. speaker, challenges remain before us, but we can indeed be proud of the humanitarian work that dr. borlaug and american patriots demonstrated to the world. today, his green revolution stands as a singular success story for our efforts to assist those in need and who need our help around the world. i am pleased to support this important resolution, which honors the life of a true american hero, dr. norman borlaug, whose incredible achievement in the fight of world hunger has helped so

many. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i yield to mr. boswell for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. boswell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and i rise in support of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boswell: dr. borlaug was one of the most unusual people i have met in my life. he impressed me in so many ways. on september 12 we lost one of the greatest humanitarians and scientists of our century. dr. borlaug has been credited to save more than one billion lives to his breakthrough work in agriculture. he was truly a remarkable man. he was born on a small farm outside of crespo, iowa. after receiving his ph.d. from the university of minnesota, he joined a research group in mexico in 1944. he developed what was called miracle wheat that tripled grain output and help move mexico agriculture to

self-sufficiency. he helped india and iran. in a recent article in "the washington post" dr. borlaug said in india, mexico and other nations, he was known as one of the greatest americans of mod rn times. not only was he a great scientist, he was a humanitarian. he was one of only five people in history to win the nobel peace prize, the presidential medal of freedom and the congressional medal of freedom. he was named by "time" magazine 1999 as one of the most 100 influential minds of the 20th century. after dr. borlaug won the nobel peace prize in 1970, the only time in its history the award was given for achievements in agriculture science. he set out to create an award

dedicated for breakthroughs in agriculture. he recognized lifesaving achievements and increased the quality, quantity and availability of food in the world. then in 1990 the prize was moved to my district in des moines, iowa. now in his 23rd year, the award has recognized individuals from around the world and has continued to promote global food security. we mourn the loss of a great iowan and an american. yet, i'm also reminded of many wonderful memories. he was truly a great person who has had and continue will to have a profound impact. his commitment to the field in agriculture and his commitment to the human condition have fed so many people around the world. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join us in hong the true american hero and father of the green revolution with a yes vote on h.res. 739. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, a member of the committee on appropriations and the ranking member on the subcommittee on transportation, housing and urban development. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for three minutes. mr. latham: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentlewoman from florida for yielding me this time, an opportunity to remember a great american, a great iowans, dr. norman borlaug. and i'm very pleased that the whole iowa delegation has come together, written a letter to the iowa state legislature and the governor to ask that a statue of dr. borlaug be placed representing iowa right here in our capitol. and i appreciate the cooperation of everyone. dr. borlaug devoted his life to a really historic campaign to save the lives of the world's neediest people throughout -- using agriculture science for

the feeding of those individuals. his innovative leadership in plant breeding and agriculture production gave birth to what we know today as the green revolution. and he's credited with saving over a billion, that's with a b, a billion lives from starvation. and the generations onward will be several billion as time goes on. i think it's interesting, his final days at the age of 95, dr. borlaug, he pressed on with his mission to work for the good of all mankind. his accomplishments and his memory will live on continuing to improve the lives of countless people around the world for generations to come. it was a great honor for me personally to call dr. borlaug a friend. i admired him for his vision and all of his accomplishments. his modesty was every bit as extraordinary.

he once described his work as, quote, a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation, end quote. dr. norman borlaug proved that one person can save a billion lives with a powerful vision and a pair of hardworking hands. and he will very, very much be missed. i think a very fitting thing that happened here with congress is to give dr. borlaug the congressional gold medal. i was very proud to have worked together with my colleagues from iowa to make that achievement. and i think the remembering of his last words is so fitting for the life of achievement that he had and the -- how he believed in basic science and having it actually relate to production agriculture. he was visiting with another scientist that he had changed -- he had taught.

an on his death bed the scientists was talking about a new technology he had. norman borlaug said, if i may try to quote what he said. he said, get it to the farmers. get it to the people who can actually make use of this technology to feed more people, to make it actually utilize in agriculture today for the feeding, to help starvation around the world. once again, i thank the speaker, i thank the gentlewoman from florida for this chance and this opportunity to recognize once again a great american, dr. norman borlaug. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm very pleased to yield two minutes, mr. speaker, to the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. bilbray: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for

yielding. there's no reason for modesty today. the chairman mentioned in his opening remarks that norman borlaug was responsible for saving more lives than any human being in history. think about that. why is it that every schoolchild in america knows who norman borlaug was? why is it that we live in a culture that celebrates celebrity more than achievement? the reason why we are introducing this bill today is to give proper recognition to one of the greatest americans who ever lived. that's the truth. and that's why we were so honored to have the opportunity to honor norman borlaug with the congressional gold medal after his other many important achievements. and those of us from the iowa delegation had a wonderful dinner with him the night before and heard that amazing story about the time when another famous iowa plant scientist who happened to be vice president of the united states, henry wallace, flew back to des moines and drove in his plymouth automobile to

mexico city to attend the inauguration of the mexican president. and he stopped in mexico to talk to his friend, norman borlaug, and together these two brilliant americans who happened to be born in iowa talked about charting a future for a plant revolution that changed the face of hunger in the world. our challenge is to build on his legacy and to continue his fight against global hunger, global poverty and to give people around the world the same sense of hope that he brought to his work every day of his life. i'm proud to call him someone that we are very honored to honor with this bill and ask for its support and passage. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from iowa, as well, mr. king, a member of the agriculture, small business and judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from iowa is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from florida for yielding. this is one of these privileges in serving in the united states congress to come to the floor and join together the state delegation, entire iowa delegation to celebrate a life so well lived as that of dr. norman borlaug. and i believe all of us knew him in some capacity or another. and we certainly watched his career. and i want to say this about dr. borlaug. he did go to school at the university of minnesota. and for my minnesota friends, i can't even imagine what it would have been like if he had a full iowa education. that's part of the manner that goes back and forth the state lines. he's also an ncaa wrestler. i can't imagine if he wrestled for the hawkeyes. minnesota has bragging rights. aggies have bragging rights. borlaug was in the factuality at texas a&m for 20 years.

they helped shape the life of norman borlaug. his birth and his upbringing in iowa, his education in minnesota, his factuality involvement at texas a&m and his global reach upon starting the green revolution, and as a couple of members have said, saved the lives. saved the lives of a billion people, a billion people with a b, dr. norman borlaug swept aside the fears of the people and proved that this planet will produce a lot more food than previously imagined. and that was before we got to this point of some of the genetic tools that we have within the laboratory today. so, mr. speaker, i want to say that you cannot overemphasize the impact that dr. norman borlaug -- of dr. norman borlaug's life. and he is a treasure, his life and his commitment is a treasure for the entire united states, for all of us. and i join mr. latham and i believe the iowa delegation in

calling upon the state legislature and the governor of iowa to request that his statue be placed in the united states capitol where it most rightfully belongs. and it would stand there with any other statue from any other state and the entire united states of america. a life well lived. and we're here celebrating that life of dr. norman borlaug. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. edwards: mr. speaker, one of the greatest personal privileges of my life was to have met dr. norman borlaug several years ago. because of his position as a distinguished profess -- professor at texas a&m university, my alma mater. his actions help saved the lives of a billion people and help prevent untold conflicts across the globe. to me, he's an inspiration. others, he was a husband,

father, grandfather, nobel peace prize recipient. he was america's greatest ambassador to the world. most of us hope to make some difference for our communities. dr. borlaug made our world a better place. growing up on an iowa farm, he went from cultivating fields to consulting global leaders, all with a plaudble, noble goal of feeding the hungry. dr. borlaug once said, peace cannot be built on empty stomachs, end quote. for his accomplishments, he was rightfully awarded the nobel peace prize in 1970. the way in which he used agricultural productivity to help create stability and prevent conflict. in 1984 as has been mentioned he join texas a&m as a distinguished professor of international agriculture. his work at the university and around the world is recognized

and continues on by those at the norman borlaug institute for agriculture. his employees are currently working in complex areas such as iraq and afghanistan to provide assistance and food to those in need. despite his unrifled achievements, dr. borlaug maintained a genuine sense of humility. he is truly an american hero whose dedication to agriculture positively changed the landcape of our world. -- landscape of our world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. the gentlewoman from florida reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the foreign affairs committee, the gentlelady from texas, mrs. sheela jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member and proponent of this legislation, my good friend. i rise in support of this

recognition of dr. norman e. borlaug for his many contributions, raising the bar, if you will, on the horrific impact of hunger in this world. he engaged in groundbreaking scientific research and personal compassion to help save over a billion people from starvation across the world. as a member of the board of directors of the congressional hunger center, i am deeply saddened by his loss. but he deserves countless accolades and none of these accolades do full justice to the greatness of his achievements in alleviating hunger. dr. borlaug's work was extremely important to the effort of my former colleague, congressman leland who represented my district until his untimely death, trying to alleviate the hunger in ethiopia on the basis of the continuing drought. both dedicated their lives to fighting hunger around the world. for 20 years dr. borlaug was a distinguished professor of

international agriculture at texas a&m university. i believe he had the thesis, teach a person to fish versus giving a person a fish and it allows them to eat forever. this area of this particular university is located in my good friend, congressman edwards', district but it is well represented throughout the state and the nation. it is the home of the institute for agriculture which presents solutions to agriculture challenges. although dr. borlaug was honored throughout his career, i'm proud he was able to continue to research techniques. he will forever be known as the father of the green revolution. i believe that his work had to do with ending drought, finding out ways of intervention so that countries that suffered from this weather condition could still have the ability to grow crops. the green revolution developed new strains of crops that could

with stand environmental threats like the drought. he is, of course, a significant -- the speaker pro tempore: ms. jackson lee: he is, of course, a significant and respected individual who fought with all of his heart against starvation around the world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida continues to reserve her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 739. 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 is agreed to and without objection the motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, h.con.res. 151 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 151, concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress that china release activist liu xiaobo. mr. berman: 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 resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: this resolution expresses the sense of congress that china should immediately release democratic activist liu xiaobo from prison. i would like to thank my friend, mr. minnick of idaho, for

sponsoring this important resolution that allows congress to stand in solidarity with mr. liu and to express support for the democratic ideals he is fighting for. last december, chinese police hauled away mr. liu, a writer, former university professor, and a veteran of the 1989 tiananmen protest, just hours after the circulation of an online petition he helped organize. called charter 2008, this petition called for greater development of human rights and reform of china's political system. charter 2008 has more than 300 original signers, representing a broad cross section of chinese society including not only dissidents and public intellectuals but also workers, farmers, entrepreneurs, professals, local officials and others. the petition was circulated widely online and accumulated more than 8,000 signatures throughout china before the chinese government shut down the

website. charter 2008 was conceived and written in conscious admiration of charter 7, a document issued in 1977 by dissidents in czechoslovakia. the chinese document calls for an end to some features of china's current political system, including replacing one party rule and a system based on human rights and democracy. the courageous chinese citizens who have signed the charrer are bravely declaring that -- charter are bravely declaring that the status quo in china is unacceptable and unsustainable. instead of thoughtfully addressing the ideas raised by the petition and responding to the dissidents, the chinese government has sought to silence their voices by harassing, intimidating and arresting them. chinese authorities violated chinese law in the handling of mr. liu's case. holding him incommunicado beyond the legal time limit at an

undisclosed location and denying him access to his family or lawyers in june, mr. liu was charged with subversion. he could face up to 15 years in jail. the chinese government seems unaware of the irony of its actions since its efforts to quash charter 2008 only underscored china's flair to hold the principles that the charter advances. i strongly support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in strong and enthusiastic support of this resolution which calls for the release of one of the true heroes of the democracy movement in china. and i want to thank our colleague from idaho, mr. minnick, for introducing this measure and for agreeing to include portions of the similar resolution that was introduced four months ago before-hand by

my friend, the chairman of the republican policy committee, mr. mccotter. as a young professor, liu xiaobo served bravely as an advisor to the students at tiananmen square. for his courageous stand he was detained, he was imprisonned by the chinese communist authorities. now he has been detained again. what led to mr. liu's detention this time was his promotion of charter 2008 which he signed last december on the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. mr. liu's court sentencing awaits, however, another anniversary, a military extravaganza to be staged by china's communist party, will take place tomorrow. tanks will roll in once again and the sounds of the boots of p.l.a. soldiers will echo once more in tiananmen square as they did on that fateful june night two decades ago when democracy

in china was killed. tomorrow's holiday, october 1, is remembered as the day in 1949 when chairman mau stood atop the gate of heavenly peace and declared victory for the communist forces. after that, things went neither heavenly nor peaceful in china. mr. liu saw the need for reform. he and his societies took their inspiration for a charter -- associates took their inspiration for a charter calling for greater freedom of human rights and free elections for the charter 1977 movement in czechoslovakia. one of the architects of that movement, democracy advocate and demormer czech president, had this to say about mr. liu and his efforts. in a december 19, 2008, opinion piece in "the wall street journal," he wrote, the chinese government should learn well the lessons of the charter 1977 movement that intimidation,

propaganda campaigns and repression are no substitute for reasoned dialogue. only the immediate unconditional release of liu xiaobo will demonstrate for beijing that that lesson has been learned. our word should echo those. beijing, open your eyes. that flashy new weapon that you will display in tomorrow's military parade, it is no substitute for the torchlight of the godess of freedom, the godess of democracy, torn down in tiananmen square. use the october 1 movement, that anniversary, to immediately release democratic activist liu xiaobo. that would be the best way to commemorate china's national day. i urge all of my colleagues to join us in vigorous support for this important resolution. mr. speaker, i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the sponsor of this very important resolution, mr. minnick, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. ms. minnick: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership and for bringing this important issue to the floor. on may 16 i delivered the commencement address to the 2009 graduates of the university of idaho. during my speech i challenged each of those college graduates to take up the cause of mr. liu xiaobo. an intellectual and literary crit whoik has spent much of his adult life in prison or under house arrest by the chinese authorities because he he the courage to speak and write that china should allow its citizens freedom of speech and urge that it should allow those citizens to select their government by

free and open elections. today on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the people's republic of china, mr. liu's trial is set to begin any day on charges which could lead him to be sentenced for up to 15 years in prison. mr. liu has held -- has been held since officials took him into custody on december 8, 2008, a day before the release of charter 2008, a declaration he co-authored that calls for political reform, greater human rights and an end to one-party rule in china. mr. liu was formerly arrested on june 23, 2009, by the beijing public security bureau and charged with insighting sub version of state power. he has since been held under criminal detention while chinese authorities continue to investigate his case. in the months after taking mr. liu into custody, officials kept liu in residential surveillance

under conditions that violated chinese laws, including denying mr. liu access to counsel and keeping him at an undisclosed location beyond the legal time limit. i urge that the chinese government, as a much-admired global power and important partner, grant mr. liu a free and fair trial. it should be open to the public, including representatives of international news agencies, where the charges against him will be fairly decided by a judge free from political pressure and instructed to consider only the law and facts of the case. i further urge that mr. liu be allowed to be represented by qualified counsel of his own choosing -- choosing, has the right to face and cross examine his accusers and present witness and evidence to prove his innocence. if he is allowed to do so, i anticipate he'll be cleared of all charges and then urge that he be set free and allowed to

resume his peaceful pursuit of civil rights and a fully democratic government. mr. liu's leadership has been an inspiration to me and to an untold number of people in china and around the world for his courage to stand up for civil liberties and his great and proud nation allow free elections at all levels of its government. his courage embodies the emerging global consensus that all people should be allowed to speak freely and have the right to demand that their country be governed by a true representative democracy. by passing this resolution, the house of representatives will send a strong message that the united states does not condone suppression of freedom, thought and suppression. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: it's fitting that we meet here today to continue this resolution because tomorrow will mark a day of infamy that has profoundly influenced the world for the past 60 years. on october 1, 1949, chairman mao stood astride tinmen square in beijing and declared a new communist china. that was the same square where 40 years later on a june 9 night in 1989, tanks and troops overran students, workers and the goddest of democracy -- goddess of democracy crushing their peaceful cries for democratic reform. tomorrow, 200,000 p.l.a. troops will march through tiananmen square in a display worthy of the height of stalinism in the height of the former soviet union, beijing's leader will show off the might of their latest military hardware. foreign diplomats have been

warned to close their windows and stay off their balconies as this parade passes by, however, for fear of being shot. this is the new china which mao proclaimed. some say that we should hold our tongues with regard to the beijing regime's actions because that regime holds america's pocketbook. others say a day of accommodation has arrived. but i believe this is a wrong misguided -- wrong, misguided and immoral stance. we should stand tall with american values and with the goddess of democracy and not in the face of systematic human rights abuses. next week, that ambassador of peace and serenity, the dalai lama, will visit us in washington. every president since george herbert walker bush has met with the dalai lama during his washington visits despite

vigorous protest from beijing that he is a splittist. president obama should do no less. tomorrow, i will join my voice with those of leo sham bow and the other signers of the charter 2008 whom we honor in this resolution in calling for a new, free and democratic china. this is what we should commemorate on october 1 rather than 60 years of repression by the communist regime in china. and, mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to mr. cow, a member of the -- mr. cao, a member of the homeland security and transportation committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. cao: i'd like to thank the gentlewoman from florida. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 151. today, i urge congress to

demand that china release democratic activist lio xiaobo from imprisonment. he's inspired millions of people to stare down their government and urge change. he's had almost no contact with the outside forward. after the chinese government commemorates the 60th anniversary of communist party rule in china, we remember under this millions of innocent chinese citizens were imprisoned and murdered. lio xiaobo once wrote that, quote, the most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and that the people select their un-- their own government. i must ask that the united states as representatives of the free world stand with the chinese people and people all over the world in fighting for

freedom and the abolition of totalitarianism. we must demand that the chinese government immediately release lio xiaobo and begin making strides towards true representative democracy. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker. i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 51, as amended. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. berman: mr. speaker, on that -- the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, 2/3

having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, h.con.res 51, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 51, concurrent resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the signing of the ant arctic treaty. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. berman, and the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: 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 resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.con.res 51, a resolution introduced by the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, recognizing the 50th anniversary of the signing of the ant arctic treaty. -- ant arctic treaty. -- antarctic treaty. the united states including the former soviet union signed the antarctic treaty in washington, d.c. the treaty, which was to govern things in antarctica, is a success. it is in the interest of all mankind that antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. as a result of the treaty, the antarctic was the first space in which the international community fwred to preclude acts or activities to assert, support or deny a claim to

territorial sovereignty. this exclusion led to the peaceful and scientific exploration of the continent without geopolitical competition. in celebration of the 50th anniversary, the smithsonian institution will host the antarctic treaty summit between november 30 and december 2 in washington. this gathering will raise awareness of the treaty's accomplishments, provide a are to up for a broad cross-section of civil society to examine lessons learned from the treaty, and discuss how they can be applied globely. i commend mr. tiberi for sponsoring this timely resolution, urge my colleagues to support it and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. for half a creenty, the

antarctic treaty has served as the indispensible element expanding the knowledge about that continent and the central role in the life of our planet. as stated in the preamble, the purple of the treaty is to ensure that antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, the interest of science and the progress of all mankind. that promise has been fulfilled, mr. speaker. the treaty is an enduring demonstration that international cooperation is not only possible across a broad and expanding range of subjects but also among an array of countries that in other areas have been strong competitors and even enemies. the original seven signatories have since been joined by 40 more which together represent the vast majority of the population of the world. the growing list of countries with active research efforts on the continent include the united states, britain, france, russia, china and argentina,

among others, underscoring the welcoming setting the treaty has created. once a mysterious and faroff land of seemingly marginal relevance to the world in which we live, half a century of scientific research has resulted in a universal recognition of antarctica's global rule. although cooperation is not mandated, the treaty's promotion of the exchange of research, joint endeavors and free access by all countries to all areas of the continent and surrounding waters has resulted in an extraordinary productive outpouring of knowledge about the continent and its direct impact on the life of our planet. the treaty has been a laboratory for more than just science and research, however. it has also demonstrated that cooperation across a broad and expanding range of interest can occur without the need for international bureaucracy,

bureaucrats or try bunals. the treaty -- tribunals. the treaty itself was only the beginning. a long list of agreements followed that have close cooperation and added additional protections for the continent ranging from the convention for the conservation antarctic marine living resources to the protocol. in the past half century we've learned that although antarctica can be an intimidating and harsh environment, it's also a fragile place which humans can easily degrade and even destroy. thanks to the success of the antarctic treaty we have gained countless benefits for all mankind, learned to care for a precious part of earth and preserve this wonderful, irreplaceable inheritance for all the generations to come. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves the balance of her

time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 51, as amended. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 1707. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1707, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with pakistan and its people and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr.

berman, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: 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. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. berman: i rise in strong support of the bill, the united states, mr. speaker, has an enormous stake in the security and stability of pakistan. we can't allow al qaeda or any other terrorist group that threatens our national security interests to operate with impunity in the tribal regions or any other part of pakistan, nor can we permit the pakistani state and its nuclear arsenal to be taken over by the taliban. to help prevent this nightmare scenario, we need to forge a true strategic partnership with pakistan and its people,

strengthen pakistan's democratic government and work to make pakistan a source of stability in a volatile region. i'm pleased to bring to the floor s. 1707, the enhanced partnership with pakistan act part. 1886 and the original senate version of this legislation. as in the house bill we passed in june, s. 1707 provides funding to strengthen the capacity of pakistan's democratic institutions, including its parliament, judicial system and law enforcement agencies. it calls for increased assistance to pakistan's public education system with an emphasis on access for women and girls. s. 1707 also provides critical security assistance to help the government of pakistan in its fight against the extremists that threaten the national

security of both pakistan and the united states. and finally, the compromised text requires that fwing in fiscal year 2011 military assistance may only be provided to pakistan if the president determines that the government of pakistan is continuing to cooperate with the united states in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and has both demonstrated a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups and has made significant efforts towards that end. i would like to quote, mr. speaker, from the letter of secretary of defense gates and admiral mullen in reference to this legislation. this is a letter sent last friday. quote, this bill would support u.s. national security interests in afghanistan and pakistan. the department of defense strongly supports moving this bill to final passage by the house and senate as expeditiously as possible.

or as secretary clinton said just yesterday, this bill will, quote, be an essential tool in support of our national security interests. i want to congratulate senators kerry and lugar for their hard work and determination and thank them for the open and cooperative spirit that they and their staffs showed in crafting this bicameral, bipartisan compromise. i want to thank my good friend from illinois, mr. kirk, and my good friend -- from my own state of california, mr. royce, for their support in crafting this legislation and supporting the compromise. and i particularly want to thank the ranking member of the committee, ms. ros-lehtinen, for her contributions and her help in reaching this point in passing this legislation. i urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself

such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise in support of the s. 1707. the text before us is a result of negotiations between the house foreign affairs and the senate foreign relations committees with substantial input from the armed services committees and other committees of interest, as well as the departments of state and defense. last week the consensus text was introduced as a new bill which passed the senate by unanimous consent on september 24. while the senate may have felt that appropriate to rush the bill through their process, many of our colleagues and i feel that a bill of this magnitude both in terms of its policy impact and the financial cost should have been considered under regular order according -- affording the opportunity for robust discussion rather than being added to the suspension calendar. nevertheless our focus is and must be on providing our civilian and military personnel the necessary resources and

authorities to succeed in implementing a u.s. strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. the bill before us addresses half of that equation, pakistan. like its predecessor, it attempts to focus more u.s. resources and attention to rebuilding and making more professional the civilian institutions in pakistan by authorizing $1.5 billion annually in nonmilitary assistance through fiscal year 2014. reminiscent of the house republican substitute to the house version of this bill, which passed in june, the new text requires before any economic assistance to pakistan can be released that the administration submit a pakistan assistance strategy report, including a description of the principle -- principal objective of u.s. assistance, a detailed spending plan, and plan for program monitoring. it further stimulates that no more than half the assistance

may be released until the congress receives a certification from the administration that this significant expenditure of taxpayer dollars is materially contributing to our multifaceted goals related to pakistan. if need be, these limitations are subject to a national interest waiver. perhaps the most significant changes in the text relate to security assistance. as members will recall, the version considered by the house in june prompted a letter from the secretary of defense gates and admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, in an associated letter from general petraeus objecting to the degree of conditionality and limitations on security assistance to pakistan which they felt would unduly constrain their efforts given the fluid and dynamic environment that exists in pakistan. i'm pleased to note, however,

that secretary gates and admiral mullen write that they now feel that the revised text addresses the key concerns that they had raised in their april 28, 2009 letter. specifically, mr. speaker, in section 202 the department of defense concerns with inflexibility be overspecific, and conditionality with respect to funding for the international military education training, and the foreign military financing have been addressed through the use of such sums instead of specific numbers and a sense of congress language instead of the binding percentage limitations. in sections 203 d.o.d. concerns about inflexibility, conditionality, and potential counterproductive effects of certain limitations on security assistance have been addressed with more balanced language on nonproliferation issues as well as counterterrorism. issues relating to the f-16

program of pakistan have also been addressed. in section 204 d.o.d. concerns about the consistency of language authorizing the pakistan counterinsurgency capabilities fund with fiscal year 2009 supplemental and the state d.o.d. agreement on transfer of funds, these issues have been addressed. the language is now consistent with that bill and prior understanding. in section 205 d.o.d. concerns about inflexibility and conditionality with respect to a requirement for civilian control of certain assistance have been addressed through better language and strong dual key waiver authority for secretary of state and defense. so i thank all of the authorities for making these changes. i thank mr. berman for his flexibility. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm very pleased to

yield to one of the key partners in working through this legislation, the chairman of the middle east and south asia subcommittee, the gentleman from new york, the vice chair of the committee, mr. ackerman. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. ackerman: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise to speak on the resolution before the house. i want to commend the chairman for his strong efforts particularly on the bill as we adopted it in the house in july. the bill before us today had to satisfy other parties and is in my view a lesser product for it. the fundamental question this legislation attempts to answer is -- how can we best ensure the full cooperation of the government of the people of pakistan in our struggle against al qaeda, the taliban, and other sources of violence, terror, and regional instability? in the text by chairman berman the answer to this question was to propose a long-term partnership, one in which both

sides had both interest and responsibilities, a partnership of equals who were expected to constantly and appropriately judge whether or not the relationpship was succeeding. the compromise bill before us today, however, is not a blueprint for a partnership. it is a recipe for disappointment followed by disillusionment. pakistan is too big and too complex to be a proper subject for the senate's preferred pygmalion like approach. even if pakistan sought such a relationpship, which they very definitely do not, pakistan is simply beyond our shaping. pakistan's interest and our own are not very closely aligned. we see india as a major ally. they see india as as inherently dangerous. we see the afghan taliban as wicked, oppressive, and violent as a group intent on returning afghanistan to primitive theocratic darkness.

they see it as a useful insurance polcy. we see pakistan's ongoing relationship with radical islamic terrorist groups as illegitimate. they see these groups as both fundamentally just and as essential leverage. they see it as an unwarranted foreign position and potentially a violation of their rights and the list of contradictions could go on across a range of subjects from madrasahs to arms sales to state enterprises of corruption to feudal land reform. setting aside the differences we have with the government of pakistan, i think we should all be very circumspect about the ability of our own government to carefully spend $1.5 billion a year in pakistan. the history of our assistance programs with pakistan does not inspire confidence in either the rectitude of our partners or own ability to spend the taxpayers' money effectively. the response to such concerns is predictable. shall we do nothing? no, of course not.

pakistan is a country we can ignore only at our own peril. only a fool could pretend that what happens there is not and will not become our concern. this bad neighborhood will definitely come to visit us if we choose not to visit it. but our success will depend chiefly on reforms taken in pakistan by pakistanis. i see little in the bill to provide any assurance that such changes are on the way. i fear again we are choosing to be pakistan's patrons rather than its partners. in the end, pakistan will absorb what we offer and remain the same pakistan. and worst of all they will claim once again that we have failed them. but we have no choice but to pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the

ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation and trade who has been working hard on this bill from the very beginning. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this legislation and i commend chairman berman for his pakistan assistance legislation which is the basis of the senate bill that we are considering here. and i also want to thank ranking member ros-lehtinen for pressing important issues that have made this a better bill. there is no doubt that pakistan is critical to america's security. having made several trips to pakistan, i had observed that large parts of that country are a hotbed of radical jihadism. it's a country of course with a nuclear arsenal. while the security situation has improved since last spring, pakistan very much remains a country in crisis. pakistan is a partner, too. any country receiving this amount of usaid better be one.

but there can be no carte blanche. this bill's conditions on aid reflect years of bad experiences. it's only right that pakistan not be proliferating or covertly aiding militants as an aid condition. it's only right that those positions are in that underlying bill that chairman berman has brought forward here. we should also proceed with the understanding that aid has the potential to worsen economic and political conditions. operating in pakistan is very difficult. usaid workers are limited in their incountry travels because of security. i have concerns about establishing too big a footprint in pakistan, in other words the so-called diplomatic surge, the fact is if the u.s. isn't welcomed in much of pakistan, it may not be the case that this

addition of personnel on the ground is helpful. so i think balance is needed in that and that's an issue that i hope and trust that the state department will reflect on. i'm pleased that the trade position, the provision on trade that was added to this bill when it passed the house, was dropped in the senate. the reason i'm pleased with that is that that provision allegedly a development plus for pakistan was at best a do-nothing provision. some argue it would actually decrease u.s. pack -- u.s.-pakistan trade. it's a shame congress can't muster the will to lib braize trade with pakistan which will do far more for its development than development aid. finally i would like to second my colleagues' concerns about neighboring afghanistan. trends there aren't moving in

our direction. it's past time for decisive action. and i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman:er mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield -- mr. speaker, before i yield can i get a sense of how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from florida has 12 minutes remaining. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield tie minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the distinguished speaker. i rise in support of s. 1707, the enhanced partnership with pakistan act of 2009. mr. speaker, this is a national security bill. it authorizes military assistance to assist pakistan, disrupt and defeat al qaeda and

insurgent elements and requires the majority of such assistance be focused on critical counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts. additionally the bill requires all military assistance blow to the democratically elected government of pakistan. the legislation authorizes $1.5 billion each year for development in economic assistance. in order for complete release of these funds, the president's special representative must certify that pakistan is making progress toward achieving the principal objectives of u.s. assistance. the legislation also authorizes funding for military education and training in the $150 million to equip train and professionalize the pakistani police. military funding in this bill has the specific purpose that pakistan approve its border security and fight the counterinsurgency within its own borders. there is a new provision that specifically bars the use of foreign military financing for any new f-16 purchases or upgrades. .

i myself have concerns about its nuclear arsenal and its past history of proliferation. that is why the bill states that no security related assistance may be provided to pakistan until the secretary of state certifies that the government of pakistan is continuing to cooperate with the united states. moreover, pakistan must demonstrate a sustained commitment toward combating terrorist groups. with these protections, mr. speaker, i believe this is a very useful bill. i thank the chairman for his leadership and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, the ranking member of the subcommittee on international organizations, human rights and oversight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes.

mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to spending billions more of our people's money and sending it to pakistan. as the bill states, the united states has contributed more than $15 billion since 2001 in military and economic assistance to pakistan. the bill before us commits the american people to another $15 billion, that's $30 billion, $30 billion that we don't have. the federal budget this year is $4 trillion. $2 trillion of that is deficit spending. we are borrowing in order to cover it. president obama right here in this chamber said we are losing an average of 750,000 jobs a month. our economy is as weak as it has ever been. our people are in need. the debt we are capri ating will break their -- the debt that we are creating will break their back. the proposition before us today will have us borrow another $15 billion from china in order to give to pakistan. we need to focus on the jobs for the american people, not for the pakistanis.

we need to have the discipline to be responsible and borrowing billions more from china to give to pakistan is not responsible. what we have here is $15 billion that we've already spent. well, where has it gotten us? after 9/11 and spending all of this money, our military reports right now indicate that the i.s.i., that's the pakistani intelligence service, still provides support for the taliban. we've given aid to pakistan in the past, and they have used their money to build nuclear weapons. and when we complained about it, president musharraf from pakistan said his people were willing to eat grass in order to have a nuclear weapon. pakistan's government still works hand in glove with the enemy factions in saudi arabia and in china. american soldiers still die every day because our diplomats won't face reality, and they keep telling us that pakistan

is just coming around while it's clear that they're playing us like a fiddle. we've heard this for years. pakistani and chinese leaders, however, during that time transferred nuclear technology to north korea, iran, libya and to this day pakistan won't give our intelligence services a chance to actually talk to that nuclear conduit, dr. abdul kahn, who actually transmitted nuclear secrets to these other countries. the pakistani government bice its weapons from china with -- buys its weapons from china with money they borrow from us. it is a twisted, ludicrous logic for us now to borrow money from the chinese to give to the dictators in china who will then sell weapons to the pakistanis. pakistan was with us in the cold war. we remember that. but the cold war is over. pakistan is now with china, and both governments, chinese and

the pakistanis, plot and maneuver against our interests all the time. well, the threat of radical islam is real, but it's not going to be solved by us being irresponsible of $15 billion of u.s. taxpayer money. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the member of the committee, the chair of the pakistani caucus and the colleague who had i had the privilege of traveling to pakistan with earlier this year, ms. jackson lee of texas, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman very much for his work. very hard work, i might add, chairman berman, and to the ranking member for the opportunity to support this legislation that has the senate title. i also support the house bill that -- of which we worked very hard on. but i support the idea that

this bill provides for enhanced monitoring and evaluation audits of u.s. assistance. it requires the presidential report on pakistan, including evaluation on pakistan's progress and counterterrorism and an assessment of whether assistance provided to pakistan is in any way facilitating the expansion of pakistan's nuclear weapons program and requires that all assistance to pakistan be provided through a civilian government. we are treading waters. we keep going back over and over again of what was. yes, we have to acknowledge that pakistan was a friend in the cold war and we have to know the pakistan people, who in fact want democracy. they're strong and resilient people. when they had the tragedy in the swat territory, those individuals that went to refugee camps didn't last long. why? because they wanted to go back and restore their lives and work. we need to establish friends with those who want to be friends. we know for sure that pakistan military has lost and shed blood on the border of afghanistan and pakistan. yes, there are problems of which we can fix with this legislation. $1.5 billion a year that will help them on their economic

recovery. i am disappointed that the legislation, congressman van hollen had, we had not been able to work that through. we worked on the investment zones, if you will, which i think is a positive step. but what we did do is we provided opportunity for schooling and an opportunity to ensure that young pakistani men are not drawn to the teachings of those who would do harm, the violent teachings that are going on, giving them alternatives in terms of promoting education. my friends, don't throw the baby away with the bath water. we have friends in pakistan. that government needs to know that we are an ally, but oversight is imperative, a regional plan is imperative, and recognizing a friend when you see it. fight the taliban, fight osama bin laden. recognize your friend. pass this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to

yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, dr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend inside remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. sometimes i wonder how we can with a straight face bring a bill up like this with the conditions of this country, especially financially. i oppose this bill for two reasons. one, we don't have the money. that would be a pretty good reason not to support it. and the other reason is, i do not believe it's in our national security interest. i know this is being promoted as benefiting our national security. but i do not believe it helps us one bit. this bill was essentially voted on in june. the vote was 284-185 which means that it is assumed that 56 -- at least 56 or more individuals in the congress switched their votes. now, they say they have tinkered with the bill and changed it a little bit. but it's still an authorization that could be $15 billion. so it hasn't had that much of a change. but today it's expected that

these individuals will change and vote for this bill not really asking the questions. now, the bill is defined as for thefying democratic institutions, a good goal -- for theifying democratic institutions, a good goal. we have 700 bases around the world. and we pursue this and we're bankrupting our country by trying to maintain this empire. i've often made the point that the way we treat our fellow countries around the world is we tell them what to do and if they do it we give them money. if not we bomb them. under this condition, we're doing both. we're currently dropping bombs in pakistan. the c.i.a. is dropping bombs, and innocent people get killed. if you want to promote our good values and our democratic process, you can't antagonize the people by literally killing people over there because if bombs are falling on this country we wouldn't be all that happy with that. so this does not improve our conditions whatsoever.

i would suggest another proposal for our foreign policy. not using bombs but what about not that. what about trading with them? instead, if this form of foreign policy -- it's that form of foreign policy that will not serve our interest. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield to the gentleman from maryland, the author of important legislation that was part of the house bill and unfortunately is not part of the final compromise, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from committee and ms. ros-lehtinen for bringing this important bill to the floor. we have to learn from our past mistakes. and the fact is that the economic and political

stability of pakistan is essential to u.s. security interests, and we know what has happened in the past when we ignored that fact. because when the soviet union withdrew its forces from afghanistan in 1989, the united states lost interest in afghanistan and we reduced our commitment to pakistan at the same time. and we all know the consequences. the consequences we saw on september 11, 2001, because what happened in that power vacuum in afghanistan was the taliban took power, they invited al qaeda in, and the result is the horrible catastrophe that we saw september 11, 2001. we must not repeat those mistakes. we must provide a substantial solid foundation to our relationship with pakistan, that includes not only military assistance but financial assistance and should require a trade relationship.

i'm disappointed that the economic zones are not in this bill. they were supported by the president of pakistan who thought was important. they were part of president obama's security strategy with respect to pakistan and afghanistan, which he announced in march. and ambassador holbrook said the r.o.z.'s are a vital component of our policy toward pakistan in a moment of great challenge, indeed crisis for that critically important nation. i hope, mr. chairman, we can continue to work on this. thank you for your leadership here. i thank representative levin as well and other members, because i think that the pakistani president is a good judge of what the economic impact would be. and i do find it curious when sometimes members of this congress substitute their judgment as to what would be in the interest -- in the economic interest of pakistan.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. now, we heard from the previous speaker that we should focus on trade more than aid. and i do think we need to move forward on trade because we do know that that provides for more sustainable foundation to long-term economic growth in pakistan. and the idea behind the reconstruction opportunity zones was to create more of an incentive for businesses to operate out of some of the troubled regions in pakistan and provide alternatives to taking up a gun or joining the taliban or joining the insurgency. so i think this is a very important part of our strategy. i'm very hopeful that we can move forward on this with the senate. disappointed, again, that the senate decided not to go forward at this time. and i just want to underscore again the statements made by secretary clinton as well as ambassador hol billions brook and the president of the united states -- holbrook and the

president of the united states. i thank the chairman for his leadership, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, a valuable member of the committee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from cril is recognized for two minutes. -- illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kirk: we have 68,000 americans in uniform in afghanistan. and they are helping our nato allies and the afghan government to fight al qaeda and the narco taliban. the narco taliban rests and rearms in pakistan, in the frontier area. this legislation gives us leverage and resources to encourage pakistani resistance to the taliban, the murderers of their own prime minister. by weakeninging the narco taliban, we give them a chance to expand its authority on both

sides of the border. now, last year i served with the regional south commander in kandahar, afghanistan, and we had regular reports of weapons moving into afghanistan to attack afghan and nato positions. this legislation enables us to work on both sides of this border against the narco taliban. i commend our ranking member, ms. ros-lehtinen, and chairman berman for making this a bipartisan bill because that's the way our troops would want it. . we are responding with unity. we have no fail your option in afghanistan. if we ignore this problem, we risk repeating the mistakes so clearly described in the 9/11 commission report. with north america's tallest building located in chicago, i believe it is our duty to absolutely prevent an attack from pakistan and afghanistan from ever happening again to the people of the united states.

i thank both of our leaders for bringing this legislation to the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california who is very much the moving party in the language that insists on pakistani cooperation, on dismantling nonprolive racial networks -- nonproliferation networks in the final version of this legislation, the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. harman: i thank the gentleman for leading and salute his leadership on this committee and our long, long, long friendship as southern california representatives. i rise in support of this legislation and again thank the committee leadership and committee members for including language in the original house bill and the original committee report reflecting many of the

concerns i have about nuclear proliferation in pakistan. regrettably some of that language is not in this compromise, so i applaud section 203's limitations. mr. speaker, pakistan poses one of the most complex foreign policy challenges facing the united states today. it sits at the intersection of vital security interests from terrorism, to nuclear proliferation, to the war in afghanistan. a secure and stable pakistan is a critical importance to the united states and yet with a large al qaeda presence, a vibrant taliban insurgency, and widespread political unrest, that stability is anything but guaranteed. recent news reports suggest that the city of kwata is becoming the new stronghold for the taliban. our ambassador to pakistan says, quote, our intelligence is vastly less. we have no people there, no cross border operations, no predators, unquote. the stakes are truly high.

pakistan's nuclear stockpile cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. in march i worked with chairman berman to incorporate language that guarantee u.s. investigators access to individuals suspected of proliferation activities. while that language is not in this bill, this bill does limit security related assistance concontinue again upon pakistan's help. a few weeks ago a pakistani court lifted the requirement that many the master mind of the most notorious nuclear smuggle ring ever remain under police escort when traveling around the contry. just recently kahn boasted to the press that the government of pakistan was complicit in his past activity. mr. berman: an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. harman: mr. speaker, it is my hope that the aid authorized by this bill will persuade the

president and his government to do more to crack down on prolive offenders and to become better partners with the world community in stabilizing their country. mr. speaker, this bill is a very large, five-year down payment on long-term success in pakistan. we need to be clear eyed about the opportunities and to embrace them. but also clear eyed about the risks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased in this bill overly prescriptive reporting and related requirements have been replace bide more appropriate and time linted provisions for pakistan strategy reports, for accountability, and monitoring of assistance. robust accountability provisions are included and are vital to reassure the american taxpayer

that their moneys are being well spent and this is particularly the case for pakistan where many pakistanis and groups like transparency international are deeply concerned about the integrity of high level officials in that country. mr. speaker, of all the foreign policy challenges facing the united states, stabilizing and transforming and reforming pakistan may be one of the most daunting. the good news is that leaders in islamabad has shown increased willingness to confront those militants who have targeted pakistani states, who have targeted the pakistani states from bases in the northwest frontier province and from south with a zir stand. a number of militant leaders have been killed or captured. most prominently the leader of the pakistani taliban. swath and other conflicted areas

of the northwest frontier province are stabilizing. although some progress has been achieved, much remains to be done. pakistan and afghanistan are part of a wider threater of operations, and despite important differences, must be considered jointly. as the administration itself suggested, following the conclusion of a comprehensive treage -- strategy review -- strategic review of afpac. suddenly, however, president obama has apparently decided to rethink the entire strategy in afghanistan after his handpicked new commander there, general stanley mcchrystal, warned that the war could be lost if he doesn't get more troops in the next 12 months. the stunning magnitude of this reversal was highlighted in an article, op-ed, in the "wall street journal" of september 22 the author, lesley gelp, a former pulitzer prize winning

reporter and president emeritus of the council of foreign relations wrote, i'm lost on president obama's afghanistan policy. along with most of the congress and the u.s. military. not quite eight months ago mr. obama pledged to defeat al guide a can -- al qaeda in afghanistan by transforming that country's political and economic infrastructure by training afghan forces and by adding 21,000 u.s. forces for starters. he proclaimed afghanistan strapped strategic centrality to prevent muslim extremism from taking over afghanistan and even more violent nation because of its nuclear weapons. and a mere three weeks ago he punctuated his commitment by proclaiming that afghanistan is a war of necessity not one of choice. white house spokesman reinforced this by promising the president would fully resource the war.

she goes on, less than one weeks week ago mr. obama said the following about troop increases. i'm going to take a very deliberative process in making those decisions. there is no immediate decision pending on resources because one of the things i'm absolutely clear about is that you have to get the strategy right and then make a determination about resources. she points out, americans are now confused and caught somewhere between remembering the president's insistence on afghanistan's importance to u.s. security and rapidly rising pressure from his party to bring the troops home. mr. speaker, if the u.s. is going to prevail against al qaeda and the taliban and win in afghanistan, the administration must take immediate steps to fully implement the strategy without any further vascillating or delays. thus, while we today prepare --

are prepared to vote strongly in support of s. 1707, and in the words of secretary gates and admiral mullen, strongly signal to the pakistani people our long-term commitment to partnering with them to fight terrorism and extremistses, i must ask what about afghanistan? how much more time will pass before general mcchrystal is provided the resources and the personnel that he deems necessary to succeed in afghanistan. as for pakistan, we join with the executive branch on a bipartisan basis to support policies that will help our friends there transform their country into a stable and prosperous democracy that will support u.s. interest in the region, that opposes militancy within and without bsh -- outside its borders, and will maintain responsible controls over its nuclear weapons capability.

this bill helps us to achieve those objectives and i urge its support. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, a former member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i rise in support of this legislation. i want to thank chairman berman, ranking member ros-lehtinen for their hard work in crafting this compromise and getting a bill the house and senate can agree on. we need to strengthen our relationship with pakistan. this is a very, very difficult part of the world and very, very difficult relationpship. but none of that overcomes the basic fact that we need a strong relationship with pakistan for our own national security interests. the threat is real. as been described by a large number of my colleagues. the threat from islamic extremism through al qaeda and other groups comes from this region in large part through al

qaeda and large part through the taliban and threatens us. to defeat that we need partners in the region. partner in afghanistan, we need a partner in pakistan. the good news is pakistan is taking steps in the right direction. as has been mentioned, they have stepped up and confronted the violent extremists and pushed back against them. they are working with us to train their forces in counter insurgency tactics. and they have also taken the first basic steps in getting a lasting democracy in place. this has been a lengthy challenge for them as they have dealt with governance and economic issues, but they have made progress. they need our help to build on that progress. because if they cannot provide a decent government, a decent governance to their people, it makes it all too easy for the violent extremists to prey on their failures and recruit pakistanis to their cause. with our support they can build a better economy, they can build the basics of government to provide for their people.

without it they are going to have a very, very difficult time accomplishing that task. that will be a threat to the region and that will be a threat to us. this bill shows a commitment from the united states to a long-term relationship. for too long the pakistanis have felt we only used them for our own interest and then walk away. and have been reluctant to embrace us, reluctant to confront the taliban to fear we will not be there to help them when it is truly needed. this bill shows the long-term commitment to the partnership we must have with the pakistani government that seems increasingly willing to have that partnership. i urge support for this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida, time has expired. the gentleman from california has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. berman: the gentlelady's time has expired. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: first i would like to just pick up on the theme the gentleman from washington just

stated. this truly is a bill that is in the interest of the american people and the pakistani people. that's why we are talking about authorizing these kinds of funds. i can assure you in the context of a failed state, in the context of victory by the insurgency in pakistan, the sum total of this bill is peanuts compared to the costs to the -- to america and the rest of the world in terms of international instability and conflict and war. we have come a long way on this legislation. i think we have built a broad base of support on a bipartisan basis and with both houses. i particularly want to thank key people on my staff who worked on this legislation.

daniel as well as the other staff members, david, and others who have worked so hard and on the minority side jamie and the others thank you for all your cooperation in helpingp to get to this point. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1707. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceed also resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 2442 by the yeas and nays.

h.r. 1771 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 1053 by the yeas and nays. remaining postponed questions will be taken later in the week. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will bebe conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2442 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 149, h.r. 2442, a bill to amend the reclamation wastewater and ground water study and facilities act to expand the bay area regional water recycling program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 338, the nays are 78. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the

vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1053 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1053, a bill to require the office of management and budget to prepare a cross cut budget for restoration activities in the chesapeake bay watershed to require the environmental agency to development and implement an adaptive management plan and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 418, the nays are one. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, the vote h.r. 2442, the bay area regional water recycling program expansion act of 2009. i was unavoidably detained in the transportation subcommittee. i'd like to register the vote for aye. and ask unanimous consent that my vote be placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas rise? ms. jenkins: to address the

house for one minute. >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from kansas. ms. jenkins: the health care debate we're having right now is complex. it's personal. it will affect every single american, and it will affect our nation's financial stability for years. we must get this right. it appears the current house proposal is not what americans are asking for. just yesterday, a senate committee rejected the so-called public option on a bipartisan vote. republicans have solutions that i believe must americans agree on. solutions to root out waste, fraud and abuse. solutions to provide care regardless of pre-existing conditions. solutions to help families access affordable care.

solutions to reduce the cost of defensive medicine. solutions to fix the system without destroying it. this debate must be thorough and the solution bipartisan. it's time to come together and to make health care affordable. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor the life and legacy of a great memphisian and great american, dr. smith. dr. smith was one of the stall warts of civil rights in the city of memphis and to the nation. he served on the county commission with me in 1978 to 1980, but he served in the county commission in shelby county from 1973 until 1994. he and his fellow county

commissioner, jesse turner sr. were known as the freedom fighters. jesse turner sr. was the national treasurer of the naacp. and dr. smith's wife was executive director of the naacp. they worked on all things in civil rights in memphis and stood up when others did not. and were always a voice of conscious and reasonableness and morality in my community. dr. smith was a great county commissioner. he worked with me and others to build the regional medical center, our general hospital in memphis that serves the people that needs health care. he was a dentist that served his community as a physician and he served in the air force and served our nation. he was a special man to me because he showed moral recollect tude of a type that's rarely seen. he knew justice beyond color and will be remembered in memphis as a great civil rights leader, a husband, a father, a

professional and a great memphisian. he will be buried friday. i will be there with him. he was a life well lived. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so recognized. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, on monday the washington post published an editorial talking about the net neutrality proposal. this proposal would call the federal government to introduce unnecessary regulation that would inherently slow down the international -- internet volume users. the so-called internet freedom protection act is pending in the house. today, the internet runs smoothly and networks balances your email, music downloads and streaming video because the internet runs without government interference. yet, net knew ralt would disrupt that.

madam speaker, in this case, the washington post got it right. implement a net -- internet knew ralt will stifle the very technological growth that we need to continue to stay competitive in the global marketplace and it needs to be defeated. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there any further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. carney of pennsylvania for today through october 13. and mr. neugebauer of texas for september 30 and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that sthrabe -- that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for october 7. mr. jones for october 7. mr. forbes for today. mr. broun for today. mr. deal for today. mr. wolf for today. mr. westmoreland for today. mr. pence for today. and ms. foxx for today. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. snyder of arkansas, mr. nie of virginia, ms. kaptur of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and previous order of the house the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the united states constitution starts out with the words, we the people. it's right there at the beginning, written large so folks don't miss it. it means that we are a self-governing people. it means that the constitution is in agreement between the people and the government. it's not an outline of what the government will give people. it's designed to keep government in a box, to keep it under control. it's purpose is to limit what government can do to the people, not the other way around. the constitution does not live, it does not breathe, it's not an evolving document with constant change of its true meaning.

it says the things it says in plain simple language. a current supreme court justice told me recently that the constitution means what five of the nine justices says it means. well, that he leetist statement maybe true as a practical matter but the writers of the constitution never wanted five justices in a dark damp secret room to make the constitution mean what the judges wanted it to menal. it seems many of the supreme court opinions are so twisted with outcome-based decisions that they are the result of the eb and flow of political and social opinions. the constitution is not some illusive ideal that changes with time but was written to prevent government or judges from making it mean different things at different times or different things depend on who's in charge. whether it be judges, congress, or even presidents. there are simple rules for adding to or taking away from

the constitution. there's a high threshold on that process for good reason. the people have to agree to change the constitution by the complicated amendment process. the constitution is a self-governing people's agreement with our government. an agreement that says to government that government must stay within these limits or the government violates its contract with the people by disregarding its duty to stay within those bounds of the constitution. now the question to be asked is, is our government out of control? if the constitution is the framework, the declaration of independence is our nation's heart. the declaration of independence gave us the justification for establishing this new nation. the constitution is the foundation of this new nation. the declaration proclaims that our rights come from the almighty god. they are inalienable. that means our rights can be stolen from us by government.

we must make sure government recognizes our individual right. government can't change what our god-given rights are. and government doesn't give people rights. government has no rights. government has power. power that comes from the people because we give our government that power. even though it's seldom taught in our nation's ivy league law schools, rights are from the almighty, not from government. if rights are from government, then government can take them away and its whim. millions of americans over the centuries have shed their blood and even died to put government power in a box. in its place. we are to control government. government was not established in this country to run rough shod over the people. there seems to me now to be an attack on our individual right business our own government. americans founding as a nation put an end to the century's long notion that might and power make right. today some people in this

country want to forget about that. our founding fathers called these he leets princelings. elite power grabbers who want to tell us how to live and run our own lives. some are at the levers of government right now. might and power does not make right. some want government to the the power to control every aspect of our lives. those that urge government takeover of health care is a prime example. government should not have the power over our health, who our doctors are or what medical procedures are allowed. government should not have abusive power over our individual lives. and it's really not about health or health care. it's about power and it's about control. government dictating how we live. in the name of, quote, saving the planet, government wants to tell us what kind of light bulbs we use or how much water is in our toilet or what type of energy we may use or not use. it doesn't matter if those intentions are good. government does not have that authority or right.

it's abusing the power we granted to it. our government in my be is out of control, borrowing and spending and taxing and taxing. doing things it has no business doing for us. it has turned into doing things to us. the american people know that their freedom and liberty are being crushed and has government broken free of its constitutional restraint. in town hall meeting after town hall meeting across the country, americans have made it clear, leave us alone to live our lives. liberty over tyranny, stop spending money we don't have and government taking money in the name of government power. the people have had enough, they do not want to be treated like subjects, subjects of government control. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. snyder. the gentleman is recognized for five mints. -- minutes. mr. snyder: madam speaker, today, september 30, is the

birthday of mrs. ruth lincoln. i say today is her birthday because unfortunately she passed away two weeks ago, but she had been very much looking forward to turning 112 years old today. this is a picture i took of her about a year ago. this is my son, this is mrs. ruth lincoln. she was born in 1897, and what i like about this picture is, mrs. lincoln, born in 1897, spans the 20th century with my little boy who was born in 2006. a 21st century little boy connecting with the 19th century. she was born in a log cabin in oklahoma in 1897. she married ben lincoln. her first vote, her first presidential election vote, was the election in which women in this country were allowed to vote for the first time and despite her efforts, president harding was elected president over her vote to for mr. james cox. she graduated from college from oklahoma a&m which became

oklahoma state. i visited several times with mrs. lincoln in the last several years. she loved growing old. she told me how she loved growing old and i became very -- it became very important to her to find out exactly how old was she growing, meaning, was she the oldest person in the county, was she the oldest person in arkansas, would at some point she become the oldest person in the united states? she loved that aspect of growing old. she loved bridge and was an avid player until late in her life. she loved her family and she had a lot of family. in fact, many of you know senator blanch lincoln who is married to her grandson, steve. it's difficult to say that someone who is two weeks short of turning 112 died unexpectedly. but a lot of us in central arkansas looked forward to mrs. ruth lincoln's birthday. she would always do something special. i remember one a couple years ago, i think it was her 110th, when she prided herself on going out in the middle of a bridge in

arkansas, the big dam bridge, to cross the arkansas river and had quite a festivity out there, which she walked some on the bridge after being helped out of her wheelchair. in the last few months she had been dwindling. her it daughter was quoted in saying she knew it was her time but i know mrs. lincoln well enough to know she was hoping that her time would be several years from now. she was proudly hoping that perhaps she could become the oldest person in the world. today we celebrate the memory of mrs. ruth lincoln on what would have been her 112th birthday. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today i had the privilege to meet darren zoo, an exceptional student from north carolina's fifth congressional district who is a freshman at isle university.

darren is in washington today to receive a prestigious scholarship from the davidson institute for talent development. at the age of 17 he's already made impressive crngs contributions to his community and to the fields of signs and math. darren is a resident of winston-salem, and a 2009 graduate of the school of signs and math met aics where he pursued his interests and develops his skills in math and science. after meeting him today i understand why he was honored as a davidson fellow by the institute. the project that helped him win this scholarship award struck me as the sort of work you'd find graduate students doing. in his research, he worked to develop more efficient data storage technology by exploring nanofabrication methods for spintronics which are a type of powerful electronics. his work is in the nanotech industry, especially in the field of nanolegitimating to are aify.

the scholarships that he won came from the davidson institute. i'd be remissify didn't highlight their program, the davidson fellows program, that recognizes the accomplishment of gifts students like darren. the davidson institute seeks to nurture and support extremely gifted young people through its many programs and scholarships. the davidson fellow scholarship that darren received recognizes students under the age of 18 for making significant contributions to society in either science, technology, mathematics, music, literature, philosophy or any other graduate level work considered outside the box. since 2001 the institute has rewarded $3.1 million in scholarships to 127 students. the institute also runs a public school in nevada for profoundly gifted middle and high school students. in addition the institute provides the wealth of resources for teachers and parents of highly gifted students.

this organization is to be commended for its strong commitment to helping our nation steward one of our most precious resources, our young people. i congratulate darren for the amazing work that helped him win this important scholarship from the davidson institute. i look forward to hearing how he continues to develop his gifts as he pursues his college education. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia, mr. nye. mr. nye: address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. nye: madam speaker, i rise today to honor the life, service and sacrifice of private first class william l. meredith of virginia beach, virginia, who was killed in action while serving our country in afghanistan on september 21, 2009. private meredith or lee, as his friends called him, grew up in virginia beach where he attended

ocean lakes high school. lee was a kind and thoughtful young man who was close to his friends. as the oldest of three brothers in a military family, he often spoke of joining the military himself. in april of 2008 lee enlisted in the army and was assigned to the 569th engineer company, fourth engineer battalion in fort carson, colorado. the mission of the fourth engineers is both critically important and highly dangerous. they specialize in locating and disposing of bombs in order to keep supply routes open. and with i.e.d. attacks continuing in iraq and on the rise in afghanistan, their skills are at high demand. in february of this year, lee's unit shipped out to iraq but in april they were redeployed to afghanistan as part of the renewed effort to defeat the taliban. last monday, just weeks after his 26th birthday and 10 days before he was scheduled to

return home on leave private lee meredith was tragically killed in action in kandahar when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle. lee was proud to be in the army and to wear our country's uniform. in the seven months that he served overseas, lee earned both the afghanistan and iraq campaign medals, the combat action badge, the bronze star and the purple heart. as a soldier, a brother, a son and a friend, he made a lasting impact on those who knew him and as an american hero his service and sacrifice will always be remembered. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. mr. burton: address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> madam speaker, thank you for allowing me to address the house for five minutes and when you travel around the country today, one of the things that we see is that a lot of people are divided on issues. the need for our government to be accountable. the administration to be accountable to the house and to the senate and for us to be accountable to the people that we represent. as we spend hours this floor debate -- debating how we bring this accountability, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what we put in the statutes because the administration says they are not going to comply with it. this year, madam speaker, when we're looking at one of the

largest budgets we have, the defense budget, the secretary of defense issued a gag order prohibiting hundreds of members of the pentagon from doing what they do every year and that is just communicate with members of congress and to tell them where cuts were being made and where money is going to various programs. and it's one thing if they want to stop them from talking to members of congress. but then when they failed to comply with the statutes that dictate that they send us information so we can make those independent assessments, madam speaker, that's where it becomes even more frustrating. the statute that's passed by this congress signed by the president says that the secretary of defense when he sends his budget over has to give the armed services committee a shipbuilding plan. it makes common sense, it makes good sense how many ships we are going to build, how many we are going to have.

he has to do the same thing with an aviation plan required by law that he smits to us an aviation plan telling us which planes they're going to build, how many planes we are going to have and the certification that the budget complies with that aviation plan. this year he just refused to do it. when we asked him about it, he responded with no information at all. and so the armed services committee on a bipartisan basis with every member of the armed services committee agreeing, every democrat, every republican, passed a congressional inquiry mandating that the secretary of defense comply with the law and send us the shipbuilding plan and the aviation plan by september 15 so we would have those figures before the conference committee came back on the authorization bill. and, madam speaker, to date he has refused to submit those plans to the armed services committee. so, madam speaker, the difficulty we have is this --

how do you as secretary of defense look at our men and women across the world who are defending this country and say to them, you need to comply with the law, you need to comply with the regulations that we send out of the pentagon but it does not apply to him and he continues to skirt the law? madam speaker, the american people deserve better and we're going to continue to fight until we get that information to hold the accountability that we think they need. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. ms. kaptur. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: i rise to ask unanimous consent to take ms. kaptur's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.

mr. johnson: madam speaker, i rise today in support of h. resolution 782. this is a resolution that i've introduced and which demands that iran fully disclose the -- its nuclear facilities and its nuclear development facilities and also allow unfettered international inspection of its nuclear program. the elimination of nuclear weapons is an issue that is certainly very close to my heart, and i would like to see

that nuclear weapons actually removed from the face of the planet. and so it certainly goes in the wrong direction where we as a nation to tolerate another nation, especially iraq, from acquiring the technology to develop nuclear weapons. and it's troubling. last week the whole world learned that iran has concealed construction of an enrichment facility near the city of kohn. and they have done that without knowing that our intelligence community already knew that the facility was over there.

it just had not been publicly disclosed as it was last week. and i guess one of the motivations for not disclosing it prior to last week was to see how deep in the bad faith bucket would iran pull its water from. and they had no intent of revealing it. it was secret. they exercised dis-- deception to conceal it. and so our announcement -- our country's announcement last week i'm sure was not a happy time for the iranian leadership. for having set the model for how they will deal with the international community insofar as nuclear enrichment from that

nuclear acquiring or building a nuclear weapon, we have to make sure that we reverse that bad faith into good faith if at all possible. and one of the ways of doing that is through continued tightening of sanctions and to isolate the country of iran for continuing to be deceptive about its nuclear intentions and its nuclear program. and so while my resolution, h.res. 782, does not impose sanctions, it just merely puts

the house of representatives on record as we approach the geneva talks coming up on thursday that we want to have disclosure immediately, immediate international inspections and immediate access by inspectors to its nuclear facilities. and so that's what this resolution does. my friend, chairman howard berman of the foreign affairs committee, has a number of options that he is considering with respect to sanctions. and so in no way would i want this bill to interfere with

other measures that will be coming out of his committee. but this is necessitated by haste because of the approaching deadline for the geneva talks to begin. so we got wide bipartisan support, and i hope my colleagues will join the 39 members from both sides of the aisle who have already co-sponsored it. and with that i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bishop of utah. mr. broun of georgia. mr. deal of georgia. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. deal: madam speaker, i have a message from the citizens of georgia. don't dare bring a bill before

this house that spends one dime of taxpayer money to provide health care for illegal aliens. during the month of august, the citizens of my state and the country spoke out on health care reform. their outcry was unlike anything we've seen in recent years. town hall meetings, tea parties, freedom rallies, they all became the forum in which the public protest was intended to send a message to this house. but here we are two months later and none of the concerns of august have been addressed. in particular, no version of the health care reform that is before the house includes the language that i offered that would require proof of citizenship before receiving taxpayer funded health care. now it appears that the house

is in a holding pattern. media reports indicate that speaker pelosi is drafting her own version of health care reform. others suggest that president obama and the white house are drafting another bill. what appears very clear is that these bills are being drafted in secret and behind closed doors and that there is no intention to submit them to the house committees for hearings or for markups. i call on the speaker and the president to open up the process, allow republicans such as me, the ranking member of the health care subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee to participate in the drafting of this bill. it's time for the law to clearly state that those who want taxpayer funded health care must prove and must verify

that they are citizens. i have language that will make that happen. but thus far it has been rejected along a party line vote. today, the other body rejected a similar proposal along a party line vote. if health care is to be written in secret, if the normal committee processes are by passed, if illegal aliens are to receive taxpayer funded health care, if a bill is rushed through this house with no opportunity to read it, if any of these things happen i predict that the historic outcry of the american people during august will pale in comparisons to the voices of concern that will raise as a result of that abuse. madam speaker, this issue is too big.

it's too important to our people. it is too destructive of our free market enterprise system to be cloaked in secrecy and rushed through this body in a partisan wheelbarrow. if that happens, the members of this house should be outraged, but more importantly, the american people will be outraged. tyranny by whatever name it bears and whatever iron fist it raises is still tyranny. the american people deserve better, and they will demand it. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? i'm sorry, georgia. mr. westmoreland: to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. westmoreland: madam speaker, times of crisis make or break reputations. my home state of georgia experienced such a crisis in the past two weeks with rainfall and floods believed to set the benchmark for the 500-year period. last week president obama declared parts of georgia a disaster area opening up for federal aid, and the house of representatives paid tribute to both the victims of the flood and the courageous emergency workers who put their own lives on the line to protect lives and property. tragically, despite our best efforts, at least 10 georgians died in those floods. seven of those deaths were in douglas county, part of which i represent. the state of georgia estimated that 20,000 homes suffered extensive damage, thousands were at least temporarily homeless, and damages had reached $500 million and could rise from there. the worse destruction occurred in the upper chat huchey river

basin -- chat huchey river basin. they were fortunate that areas of west georgia didn't experience devastation on the scale seen in north georgia and metro atlanta. while areas of southwest atlanta did see inevitable flooding during the heavyiest rainfalls on record, counties south of point lake, they did great management by the army corps of engineers. in recent years the corps of engineers have divied up say credit water resources during the painful drought in 2007 to taming raging floodwaters in recent weeks. the corps has an important water management task that many take for granted. the corps takes abuse when it has to issue tough decisions but its many good uses go unnotice. the corps management of the basin is specifically --

specifically west point lake during the floods saved lives and property. the corps acted with foresight and skill and my constituents in georgia benefited from the actions immensely. when the rain began, the corps prepared early for the deluge of water heading downstream and strategically releasing water from the lake to create more storage capacity. a leading expert on the lake caused the corps early maneuvering brilliant. throughout the week of the flood, the corps needed the water storage capacity had been given to its fullest. it held nature's fury back to protect as much and as many of those downstream below west point down, he said. the corps walked a tight rope making sure the dam held back all they could against the mighty surge and they succeeded. even though this year's flood

set the 500-year benchmark, the corps managed to keep the dam below record levels set in 2003 while at the same time regulating releases to prevent massive flooding below the dam. . the he west point lake committee gave the corps a sincere thank you and the city of west point, which did suffer some flooding and they prented the worst from happening. the corps did an excellent job controlling the river saying west point police chief, david kerr. i offer my congratulations to the fine men and women to the corps of engineers for their efforts during a trying time for georgia. when crisis hit, this public service stood ready and available when reputations could be made or broken, they made theirs. we'll never know how many lives were saved by their actions and

for that, we're all grateful and the people of west georgia want to commend the army corps of engineers. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson. mr. grayson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grayson: last night, i gave a speech and i'm not going to recount every thing i said but after that speech, several republicans asked me to apologize. i would like to apologize. i would like to apologize and here's why. according to this study, health insurance and mortality in adults which was published two weeks, 44,000 americans die every year because they have no health insurance. 44,789 americans die every year according to the harvard study.

and you can see it by going to our website at grayson.house.gov. that is 10 times more than the number of americans who have died in iraq and who died in 9/11. but that was just once. this is every single year. that's right. every single year. take a look at this. read it and weep. and i mean that, read it and weep, because of all these americans who are dying because they don't have health insurance. now, i think we should do something about that and the democratic health care plan does do something about that. it makes health care affordable for those who can't afford insurance and it safes these peoples' lives. let's remember we should care about people even after they're born. i call upon the democratic members of the house, i call upon the republican members of the house, i call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of america, for the sake of those dying people and their families.

i apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in america. i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. wolf of virginia. without objection. mr. wolf: thank you, madam speaker. i have now written attorney general eric holder on four occasions asking for an explanation of the diss missal of an important voter intimidation case. to date, the answers provided are constant and are factually inaccurate. in 1981, i was the only member, republican or on democrat of the virginia delegation in the house to vote for the vote ink rights act and was harshly criticized by "the richmond-times

dispatch." i was again criticized by editorial pages. my commitment to voting rights is beyond question. it is imperative we protect all americans' rights to vote. this is the essential right. this new black panther party case was brought in scran by career attorneys in the department of civil rights division against the party and several of its members were deploying uniform men to a polling station in philadelphia last november to harris and intimidate voters, one of whom brandished a nightstick to voters. the public and every member if they care can view video of the incident as well as other examples of the party's intimidation and in a documentary titled" coming to a polling place near you" and can be seen at w.w.w..

electionjournal.org. w.w.w..electionjournal.org. one of the witnesses of the election day incident, a veteran civil rights activist who served as bobby kennedy campaign manager has called this the most blatant form of intimidation he has ever seen and he quoted martin luther king, with billly clubs blocked the doors of polling places and neither did robert kennedy. it is an absolute disgrace. in july, the "washington times" reported that improper political influence by associate attorney general led to the dismissal of the case. politicizing of career employees. this dismissal came over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team as well as the department's own appeal office

which advised that the complaint was, quote, sufficient to support the injunction, end of quote sought by the career lawyers and that the quote, government's predominant interest in preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters, end of quote. urging the department pursue a judgment in this case, it was dismissed in may over the career attorney's objections. however, the justified dismissal has not gone unnoticed. i worked with lamar smith to demand answers from attorney general holder. i am pleased that the u.s. commission on civil rights has also taken note of the case. the commission has an important statutory responsibility to investigate voting rights deprivation and make appraisals of federal policy to enforce federal voting rights laws. congress has independent oversight responsibility over the commission and statute.

the commission should fully cooperate to the end it may effectively carry out its functions and duties. the commission has written attorney general holder on june 16, june 22, august 10 requesting answers of the dismissal. and also voted at a september meeting to make its review of the case the primary focus of the 2009 independent report. earlier today, the commission sent a fourth letter to attorney general eric holder, which i submit for the record, reiterating the request to respond no later than october 14 or it will proceed with an investigation using statutory authorities. i applaud the commission. i call on attorney general holder to answer the questions posed in my letters as well as comply with the commission's request for information so it may complete its report. i also urge the attorney general

to allow members of congress to meet with career attorneys on the trial team and appeal the body so they may answer legitimate questions. again, if members of congress want to see the case that eric holder has dropped, just go to www.electionjournal.org. it's a "national geographic" channel and you will see eric holder will have to start answering the letters that civil rights commission sends. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker recognizes mr. pence of indiana for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. franks: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, this body moved to cut off all federal funding from the association of community organizations for reform now or acorn. by now, we have all seen reports of several recent videos revealing acorn employees coaching two young individuals on how to obtain government subsidized housing to set up an underground prostitution house with underaged girls brought into this country illegally. but this is the only beginning of acorn's criminal activities plrks speaker. acorn is under investigation in at least 4 states for voter registration fraud and acorn workers have employed criminal tactics, including establishing an illegal quota system and illegally compensating canvassers. acorn has repeatedly reported false information to the i.r.s. and department of layer and acorn and its affiliates have received more than $53 million in federal funds from 1994 to 2008 and were eligible up to

$8.5 billion more dollars from the economic stimulus bill in the 2010 federal budget. mr. speaker, i believe one of the most overlooked and astounding trophies in acorn's criminal hall of fame is its role in fighting for policies that led to the mortgage crisis and got us in our current economic recession. it fought for regulatory reform, a 1977 bill that weakened mortgage lending standards. the result of the new regulations acorn lobbied for was that banks were no longer rated because they made good loans or their standard on equitable lending, but rather they were rated based on the number of loans they made, regardless of the ability of the borrower to pay back the loan or to qualify for a loan in the first place. banks were hit with large fines

if they refused to dole out these toxic loans, the majority of which they knew would not be repaid. if they still resisted the government's mandate, acorn would picture them or threaten to hit these banks with lawsuits to force them to comply. mr. speaker, although the mainstream media has been silent on the ties between acorn and president obama, it was actually during this time in the early part of president obama's career when he was working with acorn that president obama was part of the lawsuit to force city bank to abandon its time tested lending standards and disburse millions and millions of dollars in high-risk loans. his name is listed on the records of the lawsuits. president obama played a significant role in helping to shape the did he backle that caused america's recent and ongoing economic crisis. the result of the lawsuit filed has been that millions of

dollars in toxic loans were made as a result of acorn and its subsidiaries using the regulations to bludgeon america's financial institutions into making loans that they other wise would not have made. they were packaged and resold on wall street and the entire system began to crumble. if those original loans, mr. speaker, that were sold to wall street had been made under the traditional, financially sound practices based on income, down payments and credit histories rather than the politically correct and financially fatal criteria that barack obama sought to achieve, the meltdown might have been avoited. how many americans know that, mr. speaker? how many americans are aware that the role that acorn and barack obama played in creating the housing and financial crisis? mr. speaker, the ironic reality now is that president barack

obama is putting the schizophrenic position of signing a bill to defund the very organization that helped launch his career and helped get him elected and the silence from the obama administration on the acorn issue has been unbelievable, mr. speaker. the obama administration, liberal democrats in congress now have a choice. they can take a sincere stand by launching investigations into acorn and work with republicans to pass and defund acorn and to stop all federal funding for acorn or they can throw their supposed commitment to transparency and accountability out the window for good. mr. speaker, let us hope that they will choose to stand against allowing acorn to receive one more dime of taxpayer dollars now or ever again. and thank you, mr. speaker. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: washington, d.c. is focused on a lot of things these days, the debate over health care continues outside of committee hearings and we hear news reports that health care reform is being rewritten in the back hallways of this building somewhere. we also heard today that leading members of the senate on the democratic party introduced a national energy tax so-called cap and trade legislation that will raise the cost of utilities on working families and small businesses across the country by dramatic amounts.

and the president is planning to travel to copenhagen for an economic development mission for the city of chicago. but i've got to tell you, as a constituent of mine from indiana, who is with us today, mr. speaker, might well attest, when i'm back home, folks are talking about how to pass legislation to raise utility rates or how to pass legislation to lead to a government takeover of health care paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and individual mandates, and they're not talking about the olympics. what folks back in our area are talking about is jobs. they're talking about what in the world this congress is going to do to put america back to work. now back in february, when the congress passed so-called stimulus bill, speaker nancy pelosi stood on this floor and said, this bill is about jobs, jobs, jobs. the administration suggested if we didn't borrow nearly $1

trillion from future generations of americans and spread it out in the so-called stimulus spending, that unemployment would reach 8% this useful chart illustrates the point. the obama administration said without passing the stimulus bill, unemployment would go from 7.5% upwards over 8%. they said with the stimulus bill being passed, that unemployment would not exceed 8%. as people looking in, in the gallery are and around the country can see for themselves, mr. speaker, the reality is a little bit different. since passage of the so-called stimulus bill back in january, not only has unemployment exceeded the high water mark the administration projected at 8%, now it's 9.7% and i say with a heavy heart it might be rising as soon as this friday.

look, we need a strategy for independence in this country a strategy that begins to take us in the direction of new resources and exploiting our current reserves. our american energy act does that we need health care reform that will lower the cost of health insurance for working families and small businesses and lowers the cost of health care in the long-term without government takeover. chicago might need the olympics in 2016. but mostly we need to set those enterprises aside and worken on this we need to do what's always worked to get this economy moving again, fiscal restraint in washington, d.c. and tax relief for working family, small businesses and family farms. you combine that with the pro-growth trade policy, you combine that with policies that will result in a stable delar, you ghine that with rational regulatory reform and you have a prescription for economic

renewal and growth. in a word to borrow the speaker's phrase, off prescription for jobs, jobs, jobs. and i have to tell you, mr. speaker, apart from providing for the common defense and apart from, i believe, standing up for the values that make this country great, we have no higher calling in this institution than to pursue policies that will create conditions to create growth in this country. i challenge my colleagues, as we find ourselves talking about government takeovers of health care with their higher taxes as now the senate begins in earn toast work on passing a cap and trade bill in the name of climate change that will result in a massive national energy tax, why don't we all just do what they're doing back in alec, indiana. let's take a breath. let's have those debates. in the cool of the day after first and foremost we come

together in a bipartisan way we do what president kennedy did, we do what president reagan did, we do what president george w. bush did after the tower fell, and we pass fast-acting tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms this year and we begin to practice fiscal restraint on washington, d.c. that combination of traditional,ing american principle applied to this economy will create nothing short of jobs, jobs, jobs, and that's still job one on capitol hill. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a pleasure to be able to join you and my colleagues today and those who are in the gallery to talk about something that has been the talk of the town now for a number of months and is an intensely personal and important subject to all of us and that is the health care of the bodies that we have to live inside. a great deal has been said and a great deal more needs to be said in clarifying exactly

where we are on this issue because of its tremendous importance. it's importance to us in an economic sense as a nation, its importance to us as a close to 20% of our entire gross domestic product, but also as i said because of the importance each of us have to live inside our own bodies and are very much attached to our health care system. now one of the great concerns about what's being proposed is that the government will not immediately, but indirectly and inevitably take over health care. just as we saw earlier this year, the president of general motors being fired by the president of the united states. that's a unique situation. usually we separate our private industry from the federal government. what is being proposed here is, over time, the government takeover of 1/5 or so of our

economy, that is health care. when the government does too much, we have come over time to recognize certain consequences. first of all, it becomes very expensive because the government with its $500 hammers is not the most efficient. in fact, you could sometimes talk about a health care system with the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the i.r.s. the inefficient allocation of resources is ledge dare, particularly in other countries that have had the government try to run the health care system. the quality is degraded. we'll talk about those in hard statistics, particularly with people who have, for instance, cancer. we'll take a look at what the can sers survival rates are in some of the european countries with socialized medicine as opposed to the american medical system we have in this country today and then of course to be perhaps one of the most frightening things is

bureaucratic rationing, that is decisions made not by a doctor and patient, but decisions made by some bureaucrat that gets in the way. now the first thing that people have commented sometimes, and that is, if health care is expensive now, wait until it's free. that seems to be the experience of particularly people of canada and other nations. we have heard that this is a system that's being proposed by a president that's going to be simple, that it's going to save money. in fact, he said if it were going to cost us one dime more, he wouldn't even support it. yet we take a look at the simplicity of the organization, this is the democrats' bill. the organization chart for the democrats' dill. -- bill. it's complicated. this is trying to put a 1,000-page bill onto one poster, it is going to look a little complicated. but you have here a tremendous

maze of interlocking organizations and groups trying to replace a fifth of the u.s. economy. obviously, it's going to be somewhat complicated. the question is, in this maze, can the patient find their way to their doctor? that is a good question. what are we talking about in terms of cost here? is there some way that we can try to decipher when the president tells us this isn't going to cost us much, in fact the efficiency will be such that we can do this, this whole thing, without spending any more money. what sort of way can we get a handle on that? one of the things we've got already is medicaid and medicare and social security. those, of course, were the three huge entitlement programs that have been running for some period of time and we have here cost projections as to the rate of increase in the expenses for medicare or medicaid and when you take a look at these over

time, what you realize is that if nothing is changed in medicare, medicaid, social security, this is u.s. government at a certain point out here, 2052, for instance, that there will be nothing else in the federal budget. they'll absorb the entire federal budget. we have a certain tax rate we're running and what we found in terms of tax policy is, you can raise people's taxes, but it doesn't raise the amount of money the government is pulling in. you could raise taxes so much it stalls the economy and you end up taking the same thing in taxes as you did when your tax rate was lower. this is kind of our historic tax rate. when you project that out you realize that medicare or medicaid, at least a big portion of this blue chart, is going to gobble up all of the federal revenues. that means we won't spend any money, not just on food stamps or welfare, not just on our -- not just on sort of ancillary thing, but there will be no money for defense or anything

else with the way these programs are going. so the president, when he says this is going to be very efficient, it's going to save a whole lot of money, and you say, well, what do we have as an example of that sort of government efficiency? you've got medicare and medicaid, those are not very comforting examples as to what's going to happen to our -- in fact, the president has made a lot of promises he complained as he came in to give his talk about three weeks ago on health care that he inherited a $1 trillion deficit he had not, it was about a $250 billion deficit, which is bad, shouldn't have inherited that, but what we have proposed in the last six months, you can see the level of spending at $3.6 trillion that we spent in six months on all of these, here's the wall street bailout, $250 billion, started in the previous administration, half of it was spent by our current president.

then you've got the economic stimulus, i would call it the porkulous bill, didn't have much to do with stimulus at all, there goes $787 billion more. then schip and the appropriations, you've got an i.m.f., this cap and tax, the house has passed this one, this is the biggest tax increase in the history of our country, the president made the promise that if you're making less than $250,000, don't worry, we're not going to tax you, except the little detail, any time you flip your light switch, you'll get taxed with this $846 billion, which is, of course the biggest tax hike in our history, and then of course the government health care being proposed even dwarfs that. so we're talking about a pattern and history of tremendous rate of spending. in fact, if you were to take a look at all the deficits from george washington to george bush, it comes out to about $5 trillion, we're looking at $8

trillion for this administration. so we have a promise that this isn't going to cost very much we don't have much historical data to give us any sense this is going to be a financially responsible package. now one of the things that goes to the heart of health care, and i think probably if a bunch of just plain old americans were going to stand around and say, you know, let's talk about, what are you going to do to health care? one thing you'd say, one thing we know for sure, we want to make sure that the relationship between the doctor and the patient is left alone. we don't like this deal where the insurance company comes in and gets between the doctor and patient. and so one of the things we want is to leave that sacrosanct. if you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. if you like your health care plan, you can keep that too. this is what the president told us in july. he's repeated that. is that true, though?

he's also said it's not going to cost anything, also said you're not going to be taxed anything if you make less than $250,000. so what is the truth of this statement? can you really keep what you currently have? because you see, this is a very important question because $100 million americans have health care policies and relations with doctors that they like just fine right now. and we've probably got, when you sort through it, about 15 million people who are not insured. the question is, are we going to take apart entirely and try to rebuild a system for 100 million people in order to deal with the problem of 15 million. that's the question. so here's the promise that comes from the president, but is that really true? . here is gruber. his point is, the government is not going to force you to give up what you have, but that's not to say that other circumstances

won't make that happen. in fact, what's going to happen and that's what this 6 c13

i would bet i made over 100 phone calls over a two, three-year period trying to talk to them in putting one lousy left turn arrow into a traffic light signal and there was a lane papetted. it took me several years to talk to the highway department into putting one silly left turn

arrow in. can you imagine that we get phone calls saying the government that you represent has told my wife that she can't get that heart bypass. they have told my mother that she can't get that and gave her a bottle of aspirin and told her to go home. is that the sort of thing we want to deal with, the bureaucrats getting in the way of health care decisions? i don't think so. this amendment should not have failed. if the american public knew that this amendment were being offered, they would have called their congressman and said, don't you mess with the relationship between me and our doctor or my family and our doctor. that's what's at stake. from my point of view.

i came here in 2001 to serve and one of the things i found out about in congress is the farkt that there are some navy -- is the fact that there are some navy doctors here. if they have a stroke or this and that, they have the ambulance. and first place they go to is the little clinic. it is a mini city for a certain number of blocks. there are medical professionals that are there and they they also offer physicals. i had been in the missouri legislature and basically what happened there was my insurance had a health care provider that there was no way you could go see your primary care doctor. so the insurance company was getting between me and some potential doctor that i could never even figure out who the

doctor was. you call him and you can never see him. i walked into the clinic downstairs in this building feeling bulletproof and told me my health was great except for one detail, congressman akin, you have cancer. that's the word that gets your attention when somebody tells you that you have cancer. because i was here and i had access to health care, i was able to get the cancer treated. but if you take a look when it talks about cancer, let's talk about the survival rate between men and women in the united states. in men, it's 62% and 66% in women in the u.s. take a look where it is with socialized medicine in the united kingdom. 44%. for women, 52%. in other words, your chances of survival in america are a whole lot better with our free

enterprise system. all of this talk about how bad american health care is is a lot of hooey. and to try to destroy what 100 million people enjoy to take care of 15 doesn't make good sense. do you want to join us on the health care? >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i wanted to address a matter in the health care debate that was brought up by the president of the united states in this very chamber where he assured us it wasn't going to add a penny to the deficit. i don't think we can appreciate the magnitude of the health care debate without also recognizing the magnitude of the nation's deficit. and i had to call into question the accuracy of the president's assurances to this house several weeks ago. i have brought along a chart. this represents both as a percentage of g.d.p. as well as

total dollars, our deficit over the past 40 years from 1970 to 2010. as you can see, we have not done a very good job of managing our nation's finances except for four years during the clinton administration. give credit where credit's due. bill clinton produced four years of surplus budgets. we then go into the bush years, which was the most fiscally irresponsible that we have seen in peace time. last budget deficit taking 3% of the gross domestic product of our country. mr. akin: so you're saying the worst we had up through bush was 3% of g.d.p. mr. mcclintock: that's this bar right here. that red line is this year's budget deficit ending today, september 30. that's the full fiscal year deficit. you can see it's on a magnitude completely unprecedented in the history of our nation.

mr. akin: that number is incredible to me. let me try to put that in context what you're saying. when the president started his speech on health care in this chamber, he complained about inheriting $1 trillion deficit or something when it was $250 billion. mr. mcclintock: fiscal 2008 was about $450 billion. mr. akin: and he said it was $1 trillion. mr. mcclintock: bush added another trillion with the bail out. he supported that bailout, adding another $700 billion. the point is today, this year's budget deficit exceeds $1.6 trillion and that is absolutely troofic. we all know that if you -- troofic. we know if you live beyond your means today you will have to live below your means tomorrow and that's the tomorrow we are concreting for our country. mr. akin: what you're saying is, gentleman, we've got a big

financial problem with this if this health care isn't going to cost anything. and you are saying that red line, was that about three times more deficit than what he had inherited from president bush? mr. mcclintock: four times more than last year's deficit. mr. akin: the president stood here and told us he had inherited a deficit didn't mention the fact that he had four times more that he had spent in six months or eight months than the deficit he had inherited. mr. mcclintock: he has increased that deficit beyond anything we have seen in the peace time history of our nation. mr. akin: anything in the peace time history. that would be the combination of all of these things. did you count the biggest tax hike in the history of the cap and tax? mr. mcclintock: we are looking what we have spent in fiscal 2008 and what we expect to spend by the end of midnight tonight. that's a nearly four-fold increase. mr. akin: that's not including the biggest tax hike in the

history of our country passed by the house. when you flip your light switch on -- mr. mcclintock: this is on the spending side, not the tax side. the deficit is the difference between what we spend and what we take in. that's what we're talking about with the deficit. and four times larger than it was last year. and as i said, that is being taken out of the future economic prosperity of our country. that's being taken from our kids. now, we have before us the health care measure, which is nearly $1 trillion more, but we are told that won't add a dime to the deficit. well, pardon my skepticism -- mr. akin: a not adding a dime. mr. mcclintock: he underestimated the current projection by $2 trillion. he said this won't add anything more. my problem is we have plenty of experience with government health plans, both in this

country and abroad. they produce very consistent results. they produce massive cost overruns followed by an absolute brutal rationing of care. the point i wanted to make and come down to the floor today is that when this health bill was considered by the house committee on labor and employment, i offered a simple amendment, to take the president at his word, to take the democrats at their word that this isn't going to add to the deficit. so the amendment simply said we are going to suspend the cost components of the bill if the congressional budget office determines that it will be adding to the deficit. mr. akin: you took the president's words and just put an amendment to say, ok, we're going to hold your feet to the fire and it's not going to add one dime to the deficit. mr. mcclintock: we have been assured from the outset that this was not going to add to this deficit. so, when h.r. 3200 was taken up

before the house committee on labor and education, that's exactly the amendment that i offered, if the congressional budget office says this is adding to the deficit, we'll suspend the cost provisions of the bill. well, perhaps not surprising to you or those that follow this carefully, but surprising to a lot of folks who believe the president that amendment was defeat odd a straight party-line vote. . mr. akin: let me highlight what you're saying, the president said this wouldn't add a dime to the deficit. mr. mcclintock: yet his supporters in this house defeated an amendment that would have protected the treasury against this measure adding to our deficit. mr. akin: that was your amendment, then. mr. mcclintock: it was. mr. akin: congressman mcclintock of california, taking what the president said, offering it as an amendment, and in a straight party line

vote, defeated. does that leave you with any comfort that we're not going to add a dime to the deficit? mr. mcclintock: no, it leaves me thinking the supporters of the bill don't believe that claim. if the president's supporters actually believe the bill would not add to the deficit, they should have had no problem with the amendment. obviously, they don't have that confidence. they don't believe that's going to happen. how are they -- mr. akin: how are they going to pay for this whole thing? it's a trillion-dollar bill for this basically having the government take over all this health care and of course that's just openers. mr. mcclintock: we know what h.r. 3200 says, it's going to be from raising the taxes of the very wealthy individuals who earn over $250,000 a year. well we get paid pretty well by

the taxpayers for our job, that doesn't affect us, count affect most people. what a relief, right? you scratch the surface and realize more than half of those taxpayers aren't very wealthy and aren't even individuals. they're small businesses filing as subchapter s corporations that are barely holding on by their fingernails right now. mr. akin: so now we're going to increase your taxes, increase the tax on small business is that right? what we're doing? mr. mcclintock: if h.r. 3200 is passed that's what we're doing. mr. akin: let's look at the logic of twhesm increase taxes on small businesses. they have less to invest. they create 70% of the new jobs in our country. we have unemployment not at 8% but at 9 prkt. what we're going to do is tax small businesses, to make it even harder for them to put in new pieces of equipment or new

processes, to hire new people. we're going to kill jobs even more by going to socialized medicine. mr. mcclintock: it'll still be easy to build a successful small business in america, all you have to do is start with a successful large business. mr. akin: i guess that doesn't help us in the terms of unemployment. my understanding is that some of this is going to come out of the hide of people on medicare. mr. mcclintock: no doubt of that. we've seen the proposals. and the attack particularly on medicare advantage. mr. akin: i understand that was $500 billion, isn't that close half of that $1 trillion, is going to come out of medicare? mr. mcclintock: that's what they propose. mr. akin: every year, we have a problem with medicare they try to ratchet down how much we're spending on it, then they don't pay the doctors anything, and the doctors won't take anybody

on medicare anymore, so we quick, quick do a patch every year. i know you've been keeping an eye on the numbers here, we appreciate your leadership, and the people of california did a good job sending you hear, -- sending you here, but you're a good numbers man, how are we going to cut $500 billion out of medicare and not expect to feel that somehow? mr. mcclintock: the fact is, ultimately, the supports of the bill realize their numbers don't add up. that's why they've opposed every attempt to actually enforce the fiscal integrity of this measure by amendment. and the question i think all of us should be asking right now is, if the authors of this plan have no faith in its fiscal integrity, why should the rest of us? mr. akin: that's a good question. the thing that's disturbing for my good friend from california, the thing that's disturbing is you're not the only guy who has

offered amendments in committee on this bill. mr. mcclintock: quite right. mr. akin: the amendment i mentioned a moment ago, which to me is personally scary, this is a medical doctor, and what he's saying in this bill is, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any federal employee or bureaucrat no bureaucrat can dictate how you're going to -- how you and the doctor how that medicine will be delivered. in other words, the doctor and the patient make the decisions and again, just like your amendment, this thing goes down in flames on a straight party line vote. how can you stand there and vote that you want bureaucrats to ration health care? i don't understand it. but i do understand why americans would be strenuously opposed to this. mr. mcclintock: while're on the -- while we're on the subject of amendments that have been offered on this, one was to

make sure illegal aliens would not be entitled to health care under this plan, that was voted down on a party line vote, so the intent of the author is different than what the president assured us on the floor a few weeks ago. mr. akin: i've got the president's actual quote, there are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. this, too, is false. the reforms i'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. that's what he says, sit true? mr. mcclintock: an amendment that made that clear was voted down on a straight party line society in committee. another amendment was to require members of congress to take the public option. interestingly enough that amendment was killed on a straight party line vote in the ways and means committee. mr. akin: here's the text of this amendment, this is the heller amendment, one of our colleagues. bright fellow. offers this amendment in

committee. in order to utilize the public health insurance option arrange individual must have his or her eligibility determined and approved under the income and eligibility verification system that -- and the systemic alien verification for entitlements, save, programs under section 1137. in other words what they're saying is, if you want to get this free mcfrom the government which is going to be very expensive for your free health care, you've got to prove you're here legally. this amendment also was offered in committee, republicans gave it 15 yes votes, no one voted against it. yet the democrats had 26 people saying we don't want this in the bill. that means in other words that there is no enforcement mechanism for these illegals, that they're going to come in and we're supposed to pick up the tab for all these other people. in fact, it is interesting to note that this very question was sent to the congressional research which is a nonpartisan

group, and they point the same thing out. the president is just flat wrong. it says here, under 3200, speaker pelosi's bill, health insurance exchange would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option. it does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens, whether legally or illegally present. this is just a bunch of researchers read the bill. which is of course when you've got a 100--- a 1,000-page bill, that's what they've come up with. you gave us a number of examples, one, not going to add a dime to the deficit, we know that's not true. the other one is, you get to keep your doctor. and you get to keep your insurance. then there's this thing, it's not going to fund illegals. i can see why the american public would be upset. they're getting very conflicted information. mr. mcclintock: you mentioned

the researchers reading the bill, a big problem for supporters of this is, the american people are reading the bill and are realizing the impact that will have on their lives and are now rejecting it by substantial numbers. mr. akin: that raises another question, that the american public has a chance to read the bill. what's being proposed by those of us who are republicans are that we want to make sure there are 72 hours for people to be able to read something before they pop it up for a vote. you and i sat here on this floor and we find out that 300 pages of amendments were passed at 3:00 in the morning and the next day we're supposed to vote on a 1,000-page bill with 300 pages of amendments and the usual policy is there's a copy of the policy here in the chamber, there wasn't any copy of the bill on the cap and tax bill. they were still busy trying to

collate the amendments when they're taking the vote. the american public thinks, maybe it's a good idea if you guys read the bill before you pass them. we have a proposal to allow for 72 hours, people could read the bill. mr. mcclintock: i come from the california legislature, i thought that was a process that deteriorated, but the california reg slayture requires that a bill be in proint for 30 days before any action, even a committee changing a punctuation mark, 30 days. mr. akin: i thought california was the land of the fruits and nut, we in missouri worry about california out there mr. mcclintock: california still has a few last vestiges of sobriety in its process that being one of them. a proposal that a bill should be in print 7 hours before final passage doesn't sound

radical to me. mr. akin: doesn't sound radical to me. i don't think our constituents would say that was radical, that we have 72 hours to look over a proposal before voting on it. yet what we saw in that huge bill, i guess it was 1,300 pages, the biggest tax increase in the history we passed it right out of the house here. mr. mcclintock: and don't forget the so-called stimulus bill, $787 billion, three quarters of a trillion dollars, introduced at 11:00 at night and taken up for debate at 10:00 in the morning. mr. akin: didn't that acorn funding in it? mr. mcclintock: if you want to know why it is the american government would send out checks to incarcerated felons, there's your answer. mr. akin: that was another piece of efficiency of

government at work, trying to hide things under the basket that way. mr. mcclintock: there's a lot of concern among members of congress, particularly on this side of the aisle is that the intention of the majority is to emerge with a new health care bill in the same manner we saw the stimulus jammed through. that's why we're see regular cystance among democratic party leaders to take that bill that requires it to be in proint for 72 hours and bring it to a vote. mr. akin: let's say that you were the speaker, speaker pelosi, and you had a bill that we're going to do these things, one, it's going to take $500 billion from medicare that doesn't mean your older people in america are going to be too happy with it. two, it's quite clear it will provide abortions over time, free abortions for people using taxpayers' money. that doesn't make the pro life

community happy. they've got older people on medicare, got the pro life people upset, then if you're a small businessperson which is, small business employees about 80% of the people in america, they're going to get a huge tax increase to help pay for this government takeover. small business people aren't going to be too happy with it. let's see what else you've got. you've got 100 million people that have insurance policies and those insurance policies they're pleased with, because they have a good relationship with their doctor, so they're getting good health care currently, and that whole system is going to be completely rewritten. now, they've been promised they can keep what they have. when you start putting all those things together, you'll have illegal immigrants being able to get free health care on the back of the u.s. taxpayer, you start putting that all together, you're speaker pelosi, that's a hard bill to