Condemning the illegal extraction of Madagascar's natural resources.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding time for us.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a wholly unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of economic uncertainty.

Here we are on the 4th of November, and the majority thinks that this bill is going to be passed in time to move this date up to December 1. It's totally unrealistic in addition to all the other comments that I'm going to make.

H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of H.R. 627, the Credit Card

Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, a bill that was signed into law earlier this year. I opposed the bill at that time because it took the wrong approach to addressing concerns with the credit card industry. The provisions it seeks to accelerate would impose unfunded private-sector Federal mandates, increased costs to borrowers; and it would limit the availability of credit to potential borrowers, which is just the opposite of what our colleagues think they are achieving.

These provisions are inappropriate in a credit card market that is fiercely competitive, and those who are concerned about the terms of their credit cards should rely on individual responsibility to become informed. Rather than taking the approach laid out in H.R. 627 and that which is accelerated by the bill before us today, consumers can always exercise the option of either avoiding carrying a balance or of shopping for a different credit card. Many people do not realize that credit cards were created to provide for a convenient form of payment for goods and services. They were not originally intended to serve as a loan system, which is how many people are using them now.

Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. That's all we hear from the other side of the aisle. Blame. Blame. Blame. Don't take responsibility, blame George Bush. I think that's getting a little old with the American people. Excuses.

You know, this country was founded on the concept of individual freedom. That's what we were founded on and on taking responsibility. We are not in the business of blaming others, or we should not be. Our economy was doing really great until the Democrats took control of this House in 2007. You can look. We've got charts. We can show you that job growth was going on and that the economy was doing terrific. The Democrats take over, and all of a sudden everything starts going downhill.

You know, the people who take out credit cards are not having guns held to their heads. They take out the credit cards. If they don't like the rates of interest that they're paying, they should get other credit cards, but don't blame the credit card companies for extending credit to people who then are irresponsible.

All this Congress is doing is setting the example for this irresponsibility by, as my colleague from Illinois said, continuing to spend money we do not have. That is the crux of the argument. It is the largest deficit in the history of this country. In fact, it is larger than all the other deficits put together. This Congress is the example for those irresponsible people out there.

I want to talk a little bit about an article by Horace Cooper, which was printed in the May 15, 2009, issue of Politico, which gives the history and potential consequences of the bill before us, both of which are necessary in understanding the right approach to this issue, and I will be quoting Mr. Cooper for the next few minutes:

While most Americans take credit card use and ownership for granted, credit cards are a relatively new financial device coming in in only the past 50 years, but their widespread use is ample evidence of the value they bring to most Americans.

Their use started in the 1950s with the original Bank of America cards, which cardholders were able to use at multiple merchants. Notably, the entire balance would have to be paid off each month. Now there are more than 175 million credit card holders, and today, credit cards typically have revolving accounts, giving individual

users the ability to decide how much of their charges they wish to pay off each month.

Cooper continues by highlighting the consequences these new restrictions will have on financially vulnerable populations, stating: What the advocates of these reforms have failed to understand is that these changes will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and will cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped all together, and that will hurt people in the urban community--and minorities most--because their income is lower than average.

Fees and rate hikes are among the means that credit card companies use to recoup the costs associated with credit card lending. Because credit card charges aren't secured, lenders can't seize your home or even the assets you've purchased. Credit card companies use interest rates and other fees as a way to offset the risks associated with a given cardholder.

A cap or limit on fees will cause credit card companies to limit their exposure, particularly to minorities in inner city areas, since those with low incomes are at a higher risk for default, but this won't help the rest of the credit card-holding public. Everyone will likely see lower credit lines and higher average interest rates, since these are now ``forever'' rates instead of adjustable ones, and shorter credit card activation periods, weeks instead of months of authorized credit use.

Particularly troubling is that even minorities, women and working class families with good records of paying their debts will see credit access dry up. This is especially bad during an economic downturn as it means that fewer new small businesses, which increasingly rely on credit cards, will start to bring more jobs and economic growth into the economy, and it will be far harder for all families, including minorities and working class families, to bridge job losses or even temporary layoffs by using credit cards to temporarily buy family staples.

Critics of the credit card industry fail to appreciate the alternatives that presently exist to credit card use by most Americans; payday lending, auto title loans, and pawnshops for those who wish to operate within the law, and street lamp vendors named ``Rocky'' for those who don't. Minority and lower income families will be disproportionately forced to these alternatives when traditional credit card access goes away.

Mr. Cooper brings to the attention of the American people some very important points. What Republicans have done is to provide an alternative measure, H.R. 2327, the Protection of Consumer Credit and Consumer Choice Act of 2009, which embodies the principles necessary to protect the availability of credit while providing consumers with the information needed to make informed decisions.

H.R. 2327, of which I am a sponsor, would require credit card issuers to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures pertaining to, one, the time provided to make timely payments; two, allocation of payments when different annual percentage rates apply to different balances of such accounts; three, increases in APRs; four, a two-cycle average daily balance method of balance calculation; and, five, fees that may be assessed at the opening of each account.

Additionally, this alternative bill would require credit card issuers to provide advanced written notice of a change in such terms before it takes effect, with certain exceptions.

With the presence of this reasonable alternative that provides sensible consumer protections, while avoiding the pitfalls of assigning a variety of new federally unfunded mandates, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I do not have any further speakers, but I do intend to speak a little longer on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago during 1-minutes, one of our Democratic colleagues came in and talked about the number of ``shalls'' in the proposed health care bill by the Democrats and then spoke about the Ten Commandments and pointed out that the Ten Commandments liberally uses the word ``shall.''

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague from Colorado very much on a personal level, but let's get real: This bill is going nowhere. Republicans have an alternative bill that will do very well. And those of us here know that this bill is just a time consumer, because the Democrats have no real legislation to offer. They know this bill can't go into effect by December 1, but they need something to keep us here this week because they are trying to twist arms to get the votes for the health care bill. So we have to spend time talking about something, so this is what was brought up.

Let me say that, talking about health care now, we are doing that because we know when the health care bill does come to the floor, the almost 2,000-page health care bill, or a little over 2,000 pages, I suspect, won't get any time for discussion, not what it deserves, taking over one-sixth of the economy, because, and I quote from today's Roll Call, ``House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter, Democrat-New York, said that the rule would be locked down, allowing a vote on a Republican alternative and perhaps one other, but no additional amendments,'' continuing the tradition that has been going on here this entire session--no amendments, because you don't want debate on what it is we should be debating.

But let me talk a minute about the Republicans' alternative plan. It will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, which addresses the number one priority for health care reform of Americans. It will establish universal access programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with preexisting conditions.

I have read part of the plan that you have. It provides for waiting lists and taking people with existing conditions out of your plan. You don't even guarantee those people coverage.

Ending junk lawsuits. The Republican plan will help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful laws in California and Texas.

It will prevent insurers from unjustly canceling a policy or instituting annual lifetime spending caps. It will encourage small business health plans. It gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do. It will encourage innovative State programs. It will allow Americans to buy insurance across State lines.

It will codify the Hyde amendment. The Republican plan explicitly prohibits Federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion. It will promote healthier lifestyles. It will enhance Health Savings Accounts, and it will allow dependents to remain on their parents' policies for a longer time.

We have alternatives, sensible alternatives, what the American people want. And I think yesterday's elections give us some idea about what the American people want.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, as our good colleague from Illinois pointed out, the health care bill is going on

the Federal credit card and it's going to have very high interest rates, and it's something the American people want us to talk about because of its effect on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana and the Republican Conference Chair, Mr. Pence.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague from Colorado.

He mentioned that we would be able to debate the health care bill in the Rules Committee, that we'd have a long time to do it. But the Rules Committee is the only committee in the Congress that meets behind closed doors, that does not allow C-SPAN to televise what it does, despite the fact that Barack Obama promised to have deliberations on all bills broadcast on C-SPAN and Nancy Pelosi promised the most open Congress in history. This is like the book ``1984'' by George Orwell. They say one thing and do absolutely another. It's doublespeak.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not affect the bill made in order by the rule.

The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the issue of reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule.

The bill currently has 214 cosponsors. The discharge petition has 182 names, including five Democrats. This bill has gained support of an overwhelming majority of Americans and is widely respected by government watchdogs.

The existing House rule that committee reports be available for 3 days prior to floor consideration has been repeatedly waived by Republicans and Democrats alike.

This is not a partisan measure. As Members of Congress, we ought to agree that regardless of the legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to read and understand the legislation before we vote. The American public agrees with this commonsense position. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that this is not a partisan issue: 85 percent of Republicans, 76 of Democrats, and 92 percent of unaffiliated voters favor posting legislation online prior to its being voted on.

In the beginning of the year, Members of this Congress, Democrat Members of this Congress, voted to spend almost $790 billion in taxpayer dollars on a stimulus package that most Members did not even read. The enormous document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m., the day before the vote to pass it was taken.

Furthermore, before the debate on the cap-and-tax bill offered last summer, the House was presented with a 300-plus-page amendment at 3 a.m. for debate the following morning and a vote the following afternoon. This was unacceptable and further demonstrated the need to read the bill and the arguments.

Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our constituents. How are we supposed to determine what is right for our fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have time to read it?

We need to have this debate. If people oppose having the text of bills available to read, they should make their case. This amendment to the rule allows them to do just that. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have this debate and do the right thing for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield for one short question?

Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 884 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 884.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 884 provides for consideration of H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes an amendment to clarify that the accelerated effective date of December 1, 2009, will apply only to those provisions of the Credit Card Act that deal directly with credit cards and currently have an effective date on or after February 22, 2010.

The amendment also provides that the accelerated effective dates are not applicable to any credit card issuer which is a depository institution with fewer than 2 million credit cards in circulation as of the date of the enactment of the bill.

This rule makes in order five amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, the CARD Act for short. This legislation ordered important new rules to credit card issuers to end unfair, exploitive, and sharp practices, and to protect consumers against the tide of arbitrary rate hikes, spiking fees, and hidden charges.

The bill moved to end double-cycle billing, universal default and over-the-limit fees.

We passed this bill to give Americans a fair shake. The CARD Act marked a broad overhaul in the way credit card companies do business, and I acknowledge some of these changes require no small measure of time and resources to implement. Indeed, many lenders have made an honest effort to come into compliance with these new rules.

However, Mr. Speaker, the reason I stand here today is that some lenders have not used this interim period in such good faith. Since the CARD Act was signed into law, instead of preparing to implement these consumer protection provisions, some credit card companies have raised interest rates and have decreased credit limits on their consumers in advance of the effective dates. Responsible cardholders who have regularly met monthly obligations have seen their minimum payments and interest rates arbitrarily double and triple. They are finding their credit limits slashed, and they're hit with new and hidden fees. To many consumers, this is a slap in the face, and it is a violation of the spirit of the law designed to protect them. This has now unfairly increased the financial burdens on Americans in already difficult times.

Card issuers' actions highlight the need for protections under the CARD Act now more than ever. The credit card industry requires its cardholders to act responsibly, and it holds them accountable. It is in fairness that we require card issuers to act with the same level of responsibility and accountability.

H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of certain provisions in existing law related to regulations and operations of the credit card companies. The CARD Act has set deadlines for implementing various reforms and procedures, with most of those measures scheduled to take effect in February and in August of 2010. This bill would move those effective dates forward to December 1, 2009.

American consumers don't need protection next year. They need it now, so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I would say to my friend from North Carolina, in walking around the district in the suburbs of Denver, which I represent, or in doing a government at the grocery every other Saturday, a number of topics are raised. It could be the Middle East. It could be energy, health care, immigration; but always among the top five are credit cards and overdraft fees because so many people are affected by what turns out to be some sharp practices by some issuers. The purpose of the CARD Act is to stop those sharp practices.

Most of the issuers are diligent, thorough, responsible companies; but some are not. What we've seen in the interim is that those who are not have just continued to increase their prices, to increase the interest rates, and to take advantage of this interim period. It's that type of sharp practice, that irresponsible behavior, that we're trying to stop by expediting the date to December 1, 2009.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from my friend from Illinois. He has a number of things he wants to talk about. The trouble is that nothing he has talked about has anything to do with the bill that's before the House today. It's completely outside the topic.

I would just say to my friend from Illinois that this country, by taking a tack under President Bush and a Republican Congress, to cut taxes, prosecuting two wars, and driving this country into an economic ditch is what we, the Democrats, are trying to build ourselves out of. It will take time, and it will take a lot of effort on the part of everyone, but he should not be so quick to blame, because the roots of this financial distress go back to the Republican Congress and to President Bush.

Now, coming back to the topic at hand, this is about credit cards and about abusive practices which hurt individual Americans. It's not some amorphous kind of question that we face. It's for people who are barely making ends meet now, who have had good credit histories and who see their credit card interest rates rising three and four and five and six--and double sometimes--from what they were originally paying, through no fault of their own. This has got to stop.

So the purpose of the bill that is before the House today is to expedite the rules and regulations that were first passed by the House last May. It is to expedite them up to December 1, 2009.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend if she has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have and how much time does Ms. Foxx have?

I just was listening to my friend from North Carolina, and she really didn't talk about the bill. She talked about health care, which is a problem that has been lingering for a long time. Republicans for 12 years in the Congress, as well as 8 years under President Bush, failed to do anything about discriminating against people with prior illnesses. This health care bill takes care of that.

They failed to deal with anything related to the increase in premiums that individuals and businesses across the country are experiencing. We are going to take care of that.

Finally, they didn't do anything with the antitrust laws that protect insurance companies, and we are going to deal with that so that there is portability.

Now, let's get back to the bill at hand. The bill at hand deals with a real problem faced by Americans every day because companies are taking advantage of them by jacking up interest rates, continuing to use sharp practices, all to the detriment and to the harm of middle Americans. We have got to change that. So for purposes of this bill, this credit card bill, we are going to expedite the new rules to December 1. That is the purpose of the bill. That is the purpose of the underlying rule. That is why we are here today.

But with respect to the credit card bill, it is the usual Republican mantra, ``Just say no, we like the status quo,'' just as it applies to the health care bill. ``Just say no, we like the status quo.''

We can't afford the status quo when it comes to credit cards. We can't afford the status quo when it comes to health care.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think that my friend from North Carolina and I are going to have a lot of time on the Rules Committee to debate health care issues, so I am going to just remind her that the health care matter was never addressed by a Republican Congress and really not addressed by the President of the United States, except to create the doughnut hole for seniors. That is about the sum and substance of 12 years of Republicans in Congress and 8 years of President Bush in the White House.

Now, we've had three committees debate this health care bill over time, many, many amendments, lots of discussion, lots of conversations all across America dealing with the health care bill. So we're going to see that come up here very soon and we will continue to have this kind of spirited debate.

As it applies to the elections, I'm not sure if I want to remind my good friend from North Carolina that the Democrats picked up a seat in New York that they hadn't held for 154 years. So there was good news and bad news for both Democrats and Republicans in yesterday's elections.

But I would remind my friend we are here on the credit card bill. This is to move up the date for the rules and regulations to go into place to December 1 to stop the sharp practices that we see occurring today, which is the increase of interest rates, the continued use of double billing cycles, and the like, which are hurting everyday Americans. And that's got to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to allow the gentlewoman from North Carolina to close and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, just to correct a couple of points, TVs are always allowed in the Rules Committee, always are invited to each and every hearing and committee meeting. Sometimes they come, sometimes they don't. My guess is that they'll be there for the debate on the health care bill.

I just want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the bill that produced the doughnut hole for seniors on Medicare and was written by a Republican Congress with a Republican President, the word ``shall'' appeared in that bill 2,080 times.

I will yield to my good friend for about 10 seconds.

No. And the gentlewoman makes a point. No question about that.

But the problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they're concerned that there's too much regulation or we're focused on trying to rein in credit card companies or rein in insurance companies when it comes to health care. Their focus is on the profits of those companies. Well, our focus is on middle Americans who felt the sharp practices of credit card companies and have seen their premiums go sky high as part of the health system that we have in this country today.

Speaking about this bill, this credit card expedited bill, our purpose before the House of Representatives is to pass a rule that allows us to take up the credit card bill to move up rules and regulations to be imposed on credit card companies on December 1, 2009, instead of waiting until February of 2010 and August of 2010. The purpose is because we have seen rates being increased dramatically on all sorts of people. We see billing practice continue to be applied which hurts everyday Americans, and this has got to stop. It's not fair that the profits come before treating people honorably, responsibly, those people who have been paying their credit cards on time regularly. They're seeing their credit cards' interest rates increase. This has got to be limited and stopped.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The irreplaceable role of healthy forests as havens for biodiversity, carbon sinks and renewable resources demands that we reverse a global legacy of environmental pillaging. Illegal logging and resource extraction is not just about environmental decimation, with watershed pollution, biodiversity loss and increased carbon emissions, it's about the human loss as well: the local communities left with a culture of violence and corruption devastated without resources for survival, and beyond, to everybody on the planet.

We all benefit from the medicines, carbon capture and species diversity these forests provide. For years, I've worked to eliminate the illegal logging trade. To make sure the United States can lead by example and stop our own use of illegally logged lumber, I authored the Legal Timber Protection Act whose provisions were signed into law last year. The U.S. Government is now empowered to determine where imported wood and plants actually come from to promote legal harvest. Yet the illegal trade continues.

Last Thursday, with Chairmen Payne and Faleomavaega, I introduced a resolution to condemn the illegal logging and extraction of Madagascar's unique and invaluable natural resources. Madagascar hosts some of this planet's greatest diversity. Larger than the State of California, this island nation broke off from the African mainland about 160 million years ago, spawning a biological laboratory with over 150,000 plants and animals found nowhere else in the world: massive moths, towering trees, and a hundred different lemur species. The majority of Madagascar's people live on less than $2 a day, and protection of these incredible and unique resources, only 10 percent of which remain, could be key to a sustainable and economically secure future. Yet political turmoil is putting the honest livelihoods of many, as well as one of our planet's greatest treasures, in extreme peril.

In March, the democratically elected President was ousted by a political rival with the backing of the military, a move which has been condemned by the United States, the African Union and others as a military coup d'etat. That ushered in a collapse of security for these precious treasures as political instability bred further corruption and mismanagement. Twenty years of partnership with the United States and nongovernmental organizations that has resulted in more effective local management and preservation is being undone in a matter of months. The de facto government uses the nation's endangered resources to boost its regime and has issued sweeping decrees allowing the harvest and export of wood from protected forests and World Heritage Sites.

Reports from Madagascar are dire, detailing rampant illegal logging, mining, and resource degradation as detailed in an excellent report in last Friday's Washington Post. Traffickers smuggle record numbers of one of the

world's rarest tortoises to Asian and European collectors; poachers kill and roast scores of lemurs for restaurants; and armed loggers brazenly plunder protected forests, looting dwindling hardwoods for furniture. These activities not only deny locals access to basic resources, they also degrade the country's thriving eco-tourism industry which brought in almost $400 million last year.

The United States has condemned this current government and suspended all nonhumanitarian aid and terminated assistance through a Millennium Development Corporation compact. The World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society have all denounced the subsequent wholesale exploitation of some of the world's most diverse forests and the decimation of the local people's resources and livelihood.

As the World Forestry Congress convenes this week, we have an excellent opportunity to raise awareness to stop rampant illegal logging and the harvesting of species. I am pleased that the United States Forest Service chief specifically referenced our resolution, H. Res. 839, during his address to the Forestry Congress as an example of United States commitment. The international community, all of us, must engage before it's too late for these protected species and do all we can to prevent the irreparable harm caused by illegal logging.

This resolution condemns the ongoing tragedy and calls for the restoration of the rule of law and shows that the Federal Government will fight to help the people of Madagascar protect these resources.

I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring House Resolution 839 so that the House can do its part to stop this outrage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 839 ``Condemning the illegal extraction of Madagascar's natural resources.'' This timely resolution calls upon the leadership of Madagascar to undertake democratic reforms as well as immediately implement measures to protect their fragile and beautiful environment.

There are many beautiful places in this world, but few are as diverse as the island nation of Madagascar. Madagascar is the world's fourth largest island, covering over 144 million acres. This unique island has a wide range of ecosystems including rain forests, dry forests, volcanic mountains, and a large desert. The climate ranges from tropical along the coast to temperate inland to arid in the south. This environmental diversity supports an equally large range of biodiversity. The island is home to 150,000 species of unique flora and fauna, as well as thousands of animals found nowhere else on earth. According to the World Wildlife Fund, ``approximately 92 percent of Madagascar's reptiles, 68 percent of its plant life and 98 percent of its land mammals, including lemurs, exist naturally nowhere else on Earth.''

Madagascar is also home to over 20 million people who depend on the biodiversity to survive. For example, the Wildlife Conservation Society estimates that 150,000 people depend on the Makira-Masoala rainforest as their primary source of water. Approximately 80 percent of Madagascar's population lives below the poverty line, 70 percent of the population live outside cities, and many Malagasy people depend on subsistence farming; thus, the fate of the Malagasy people is closely intertwined with that of their environment.

Mr. Speaker, as this resolution points out, the livelihoods of the people, animals and plants on Madagascar are threatened by a political crisis that triggered a pillage of its valuable wildlife and forests. In mid-March 2009, President Marc Ravalomanana's government was overthrown by forces led by Andry Rajoelina. Mr. Rajoelina, a key opposition leader and sitting mayor of Madagascar's capitol city was upset with the President's conflict of interest between his extensive commercial interests and running the country. Ravalomanana was both the President of the government and the country's mammoth business conglomerate.

Protestors accused the President of wasting international aid money and striking a harmful land deal with Daewoo, Inc. of South Korea. Under the deal, Daewoo would own an area of farmland the size of Belgium.

During the coup, over 135 people died and thousands were injured in frequent clashes between protestors and police and army forces. The violence has crippled the island's $390 million-a-year tourism sector, and unnerved foreign investors in Madagascar's mining and oil industries. The human rights of Ravalomanana's supporters are being threatened throughout the country. Many of his supporters that remain in the country are in hiding, have been beaten, or are in jail.

The Obama Administration has condemned Marc Ravalomanana's forced resignation as President of the Republic of Madagascar, and Andry Rajoelina's installation as de facto head of state, as tantamount to a coup d'etat, undemocratic, and contrary to the rule of law. By

designating the regime change as a coup, the U.S. has suspended all non-emergency foreign assistance. The African Union and other international organizations have similarly denounced the coup but, despite international pressure, a return to democracy seems unlikely.

This is a sad sequence of events for a country once lauded as a success story in Africa. Madagascar, as you may recall, was the first country to receive a contract from the Millennium Challenge Cooperation when, in April 2005, the Millennium Challenge Corporation signed a 4- year, $110 million Compact with the Republic of Madagascar to raise incomes by assisting the rural population to transition from subsistence agriculture to a market economy.

Today, the new government threatens not only the fragile ecosystems, but the citizens of their own nation. This is why I strongly support this resolution that calls on people of Madagascar to immediately undertake a democratic, consensual process to restore constitutional governance, culminating in free, fair and peaceful elections, as well as denounce the illegal extraction of Madagascar's natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. And while I appreciate my good friend's clarification that this rule has to do with a credit card bill that's on the floor today, I take this opportunity respectfully to speak about that issue which is foremost in the minds of the American people at this hour, and that is this freight train of Big Government moving through the Congress at a frightening speed that we believe with all our hearts will result in a government takeover of health care in America.

After months of behind-closed-doors dealings, the Democratic majority, in cooperation with the White House and special interest groups, produced late last week finally a bill. It may be amended again, Mr. Speaker, but we have a 1,990-page bill that, according to independent press estimates, includes $1.2 trillion in new Federal spending on expanded health insurance coverage over the next 10 years. It includes $729.5 billion in new taxes on small businesses and individuals. It is in every real sense a government takeover of health care and the burden and payment of which will be borne principally by Americans that make less than $200,000 per year.

An independent estimate that we received yesterday, as Republicans spent hours reading the bill in our reading room, was that actually, despite the fact that as a candidate President Obama pledged that he would not raise taxes on Americans who make less than $200,000 a year, with the Pelosi health care bill, actually the tax increases would fall most squarely on Americans making below that threshold amount. Eighty- seven percent of the taxes that are being levied in the Democrat health care bill will be paid by Americans that make less than $200,000 a year, fees and mandates and fines and penalties falling squarely on our middle class. It's really extraordinary when you think of it that it's taking place during what is, without debate, the worst recession in a quarter of a century.

But it doesn't just stop there. When we say that it's a government takeover of health care, we are talking real numbers and real bureaucracy. Those that say otherwise ignore the fact that in this legislation there are 43 entitlement programs that are created, expanded, or extended. There are 111 additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies that the bill creates over and above the entitlement expansions included in the prior bill.

Lastly, we all know as legislators that the word ``shall'' is not a friendly word when it comes in law. When the word ``shall'' appears in law, it means that someone must do something, a business, an enterprise, an element of the bureaucracy shall take action. The word ``shall'' appears in the Democrat health care bill 3,425 times. Yet the majority and the administration continue to insist that this is not a government takeover of health care? I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the American people are catching on and they know otherwise.

But the good news is there's an alternative. People can go to healthcare.gop.gov, and as has emerged in recent days, Republicans have a bill. I know our colleagues have been pointing at some blank pages on the floor in the last 24 hours, but the American people surfing the net know that the Republican bill is actually a little bit over 200 pages, allows Americans to purchase health insurance across State lines the way big businesses can, allows associations to pool their employees to bring down the cost of insurance. It brings about medical malpractice reform to end junk lawsuits and end defensive medicine in America, and we use those savings to actually strengthen those funds at the State level, those programs that cover preexisting conditions for Americans.

While the majority is focused on growing government to achieve something called universal coverage, Republicans are focused on what the American people want us to focus on, and that is lowering the cost of health insurance and lowering the cost of health care by giving the American people and American enterprise more choices, reasonable limits on litigation, and helping people with preexisting conditions.