Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Increasing Access to Voluntary Screening for HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections Act of 2009, a bill that will reduce the spread and morbidities associated with HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, STIs.

Fifty percent of sexually active Americans will contract an STI at some point in their lives, and 15 million STIs are reported each year in the United States. Many of these infections are asymptomatic for an extended amount of time and often remain undiagnosed, or diagnosed at later stages resulting in increased rates of mortality, morbidity, disability, and transmission.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommend that voluntary screening for HIV/AIDS and other STIs be integrated into routine clinical care. However, stigma, culture, language, lack of education, cost, limited resources, and inaccurate perceptions of risk contribute to insufficient screening for HIV/AIDS and STIs. And, these same factors have exacerbated the instances of transmission and late detection of HIV/AIDS and STIs over the past decade.

The Increasing Access to Voluntary Screening for HIV/AIDS and STIs Act of 2009 takes an aggressive and multifaceted approach to combating HIV/AIDS and STIs by increasing access to voluntary screening and other preventative methods while preserving patient rights and confidentiality.

Among other things, my bill includes 83 percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, FMAP, rate for the screening of HIV/AIDS and other STIs and requires all private health insurance plans to cover screening for HIV/AIDS and other STIs. My bill provides grants to Federally Qualified Health Centers to serve individuals who cannot access screening because they lack insurance coverage or sufficient income. And, my bill urges the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to implement a broad and comprehensive approach to covering screening for HIV/AIDS, and encourages CMS to take steps to reimburse screening for other STIs.

Additionally, the Increasing Access to Voluntary Screening for HIV/ AIDs and STIs Act of 2009 supports access to early medical and mental treatment. It includes language from the Early Treatment for HIV/AIDS Act, ETHA, and requires testing facilities to link patients to appropriate medical and mental health services.

Lastly, the bill will make screening and other preventative services more accessible to groups that have been historically underrepresented in public health interventions for HIV/AIDS and other STIs. It requires the Director of the CDC to work with appropriate entities to track screening trends for HIV/AIDS and STIs among people with disabilities, and ensure that comprehensive sex education materials are accessible to these individuals. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take the appropriate steps to ensure that all women have equal access to screening for cervical cancer regardless of sexual behavior or sexual orientation. And, this bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to improve research efforts concerning the prevention, spread and transmission of HIV/AIDS and STIs in the transgender community.

Madam Speaker, voluntary and routine screening for HIV/AIDS and other STIs is an effective and low-cost approach to decreasing the life- threatening and life-altering effects of these infections. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill that includes a comprehensive and evidence based strategy to improve the overall health of our nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding educator and devoted mentor, Ms. Anthonette Pena. Anthonette teaches eighth grade science at Howell L. Watkins Middle School in Palm Beach Gardens, FL and is indeed among Florida's best and brightest. A standout among her colleagues with a passion for teaching and shaping educational policy, Anthonette has earned an esteemed Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship for a second year in a row.

I.welcome Anthonette to Washington and am certain that her time at the office of the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings at the National Science Foundation (NSF) will be an enriching learning experience for all involved. Anthonette hopes to use this fellowship year to raise awareness about the importance of community organizations and government in motivating students to excel in science and mathematics. I laud her commitment to creating more scholarships for students of under-served populations so they, too, may benefit from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) opportunities.

I. her home state of Florida, Anthonette is very active in her local community. In addition to securing several grants for science related programs, she also dedicates her time as a mentor for beginning teachers. Anthonette believes that employing cross-curricular lessons is key to developing well-rounded, critical thinkers. When she organized her school's first Girl Scout troop, she not only incorporated STEM activities, but brought learning opportunities from inside the classroom into the community.

Anthonette has worked hard to earn this distinction, and exemplifies the possibilities that a good education offers. She earned her B.A. in Liberal Studies at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and her M.S. in Education at Nova Southeastern University. Recognizing the importance of a well-balanced education in today's ever-shrinking world, Anthonette also studied abroad at The University of Valladolid in Spain, while also participating in the Japan Fulbright Memorial Fund Teacher program and the Toyota International Teacher Program in Costa Rica.

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the work that Anthonette Pena and Florida's teachers do every single day in preparing our nation's leaders of tomorrow. She has long demonstrated excellence and dedication to teaching worthy of the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship, and I congratulate her double on this achievement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 15- year-old Michael Brewer of Deerfield Beach, Florida, whose courage and strength defy the atrocious attack he has endured. Michael sustained burns to over 65 percent of his body after a group of schoolmates set him on fire in an act of cruel revenge. On October 12, 2009, neighborhood bullies Matthew Bent, 15; brothers Denver and Jeremy Jarvis, 15 and 13 respectively; Steven Shelton, 15; and Jesus Mendez, 15; surrounded Michael in the parking lot of Limetree Village Apartments, poured rubbing alcohol on him, and set him on fire with a lighter. Led by Bent, the bullies sought him out and terrorized him for not paying back $40 borrowed to buy a video game. Michael had called the police the night before the encounter when Bent attempted to steal a $500 custom bike from Michael's father at their home.

I am truly shocked and outraged by this heinous crime. Michael still remains in critical condition at the University of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital Burn Center and will have to endure a long and painful recovery process. A 7th grader at Deerfield Beach Middle School, he has since received hundreds of cards and letters of support from fellow classmates and well-wishers from around the world. My thoughts and prayers go out to Michael, his family, and friends during this most difficult time. It is heartening to hear that Michael's first surgery went well and that his doctors are cautiously optimistic about his recovery.

In addition, I want to commend the South Florida community for coming together to raise money in order to help the Brewer family pay for Michael's medical expenses. During these difficult economic times, these Floridians have shown their true colors by extending a helping

hand to a neighbor in need. In particular, I would like to recognize Neighbors 4 Neighbors for raising more than $10,000 for Michael, and Broward Sheriff's detective Joe Kessling for his leadership and community activism.

Madam Speaker, we must stop the dangerous values of bullying and violence from being perpetuated in our schools and communities. Young people like Michael deserve a safe educational environment in which they can reach their full potential and become respectful, contributing members of our society.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it not correct procedure in the House of Representatives for the purpose, when a Member offers a unanimous consent request, that the objection be heard after the conclusion of the unanimous consent request?

Distinguished chairwoman and distinguished Speaker, this is an extraordinary day for the two of you and the Members of the House of Representatives. I, too, am hopeful that our legacy is that we achieved health care for more citizens in our great country.

Achieving comprehensive health care reform in a way that is sustainable, fiscally responsible, and improves the overall health of the American people has proven to be no small task. The facts are clear. Despite being the richest country on Earth, the United States ranks 45th in life expectancy and has startlingly high rates of infant mortality, depression, and chronic disease. What's more, employer- sponsored health insurance premiums have grown six times faster than cumulative wages. This issue hits close to home.

My State of Florida has the sixth highest number of uninsured people in the country. There are millions that are uninsured and tens of millions who are underinsured, and they are the prime justification for moving forward with one of the most important health care reform agendas in modern history.

Some have sought to dominate the health care debate with fear- mongering, misinformation, and blind opposition to key reform elements without offering substantive and high-quality alternatives. This perpetuation of fictions and misinterpretations is off base and has steered the health care discussion off course. Such claims as death care panels, rationed care, government monopoly, these are not true.

What is true is that the United States spends more on health care than any other country in the world, but yet the high cost of care has not brought a high standard of health for millions of Americans.

What's true is that Medicare, which is a Federal Government plan and one of the great health care successes that this gentleman in the Chair had something to do with in our Nation's history, was initially met with opposition, the same we get now.

I urge this measure to be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I once again thank Chairman Bennie Thompson for offering this vital legislation, and I thank him for supporting this amendment.

As Vice Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I commend the recognition of the potential risks associated with our chemical manufacturing and water treatment infrastructure. Securing these industries is vital not only to America's economic viability, it is essential to the human security of surrounding communities.

My amendment will strengthen the Office of Chemical Facility Security created by designating a specific point of contact for interagency coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies. This amendment also requires the Secretary to proactively inform State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees about activities related to the implementation of the act so that they may update their emergency planning and training procedures.

I know that Chairman Thompson would agree with the fact that many facilities that will be designated with significant risk through the implementation of this legislation lie in communities of significant economic need and vulnerability to chemical and contaminant exposure. For this reason, many of such areas are characterized as environmental justice communities. It is necessary that these communities be better empowered to strategically plan for potential chemical releases and security risks.

The fact is incidents like the 1984 methyl isocyanate released from a chemical facility in Bhopal, India continue to happen throughout the United States on a smaller scale. Until we enforce chemical release regulations and take aggressive steps to protect vulnerable environmental justice communities, they will be at even greater risk for acts of terror.

Also, the amendment designates a specific point of contact for interagency coordination to ensure greater transparency when it comes to our oversight responsibilities as Members of Congress. This adjustment will ensure that all agencies invoked by this legislation will cooperate as closely as possible.

I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished subcommittee Chair, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 885 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

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 885.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 885 provides for consideration of H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate equally divided between the Committees on Homeland Security, Energy and Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It further provides that in lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committees on Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished Chair, I would like to remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle that what we're debating here is the rule for H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. This bill is about renewing the Homeland Security Department's authority to implement, enforce, and improve the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards and to require that the EPA establish parallel security programs for drinking water and wastewater facilities. It's important that we pass this legislation.

I find it striking that my friend and colleague would reference the fact that a distinguished legislator, a friend of mine, who was doubtless here when this legislation originated, and I'm sure has insight as to its origination--but as I have lived here in this institution for nearly 20 years, I've found an evolutionary process to just about all legislation. And there was a major intervention between the implementation of this legislation initially and today, and that intervention was 9/11. And the things that have flowed from it allowed that we have more than 6,000 facilities in this country that are vulnerable and we have an absolute responsibility to deal with them. We also have an absolute responsibility to pass health care.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend,

the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

I yield to the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, inherently safer technologies, known as methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, includes techniques such as eliminating or reducing the amount of toxic chemicals stored on-site or using safer processes that facilitate as a best practice often integrated into the operations.

My good friend from California doth protest too much about us legislating on something that is particularly critical that we have this IST technology, and his argument, as I heard a portion of it, is we are doing this for the reason that we are waiting for health care and we don't have anything else to do. Well, that's just not true. We've been a pretty busy Congress from the inception of this Congress. If there was no health care provision, we would have matters that we would have to undertake, including this particularly critical matter.

Only a small subset of the people that he is talking about, covered chemical facilities, are placed in the top two riskiest tiers by the Department of Homeland Security because of the consequences in the event of a chemical release, and it could be required to implement IST. Between 100 and 200 chemical facilities nationwide currently fall into that category, according to DHS.

I am continually surprised at my colleagues' arguments. A while back, we were describing them as the party of ``no,'' and I think that that had currency and still does after you look at their health care provision, which insures nobody. But the thing that really I find interesting about this is that they really are the party of ``status quo.'' And if you look at this legislation that Congressman Thompson, Congressman Oberstar, and Congressman Waxman have fashioned, had hearings that were in the public, everybody had an opportunity to make their presentation, including what you just heard from our colleague, someone that had a different view as occurs in just about every hearing--the minority has an opportunity most times to bring witnesses and the majority brings witnesses, and generally, they don't agree. But that doesn't mean in this body that we don't have an exacting responsibility to go forward with legislation demonstrably to improve the American public's safety. That is what we are here about at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished chairman of this committee to correct a few of the inaccuracies that my distinguished colleague, Mr. Dent, offered. One that I heard, the Department of Homeland Security has a responsibility of regulating the matter under our consideration and not the Environmental Protection Agency.

I yield to Mr. Thompson such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend's passion. I don't know whether he has any Native American tribes in his constituency, but I do. I have Seminoles and Miccosukees in my constituency, and they are as proud of their ability to operate facilities and to do those things. As a matter of fact, quite frankly, both of those tribes are doing a whole whale of a lot better than a part of the systemic institutions that have existed in the non-Native American area.

And I remind my friend that we are not here about the health care bill.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, who is the subcommittee Chair of the Homeland Security committee that has jurisdiction on this particular matter, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Rhode Island, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Langevin.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remind my colleagues of the urgency of this legislation. This bill takes important steps to protect our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Publicly owned treatment facilities serve more than 200 million Americans and consist of 16,000 treatment plants, 100,000 major pumping stations, and 600,000 miles of sanitary sewers. Damage to these facilities and collection systems could result in loss of life, contamination of drinking water facilities, catastrophic damage to lakes and rivers, and long-term public health impacts.

Also, by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish risk-based performance standards for community water systems serving more than 3,300 people and other exceptional water systems posing significant risk, the bill safeguards our Nation's drinking water supply and restores confidence at a time of upheaval and uncertainty.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 885 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 4. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain

instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 554.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the launch by the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County of its Armed Services Advocacy Project, ASAP, made possible through a grant from the Florida BRAIVE Fund at the Dade Community Foundation. More than 1.7 million veterans call Florida home, one of the largest such populations of any State. Palm Beach County alone is home to 1,200 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The need for services for these people is tremendous.

This new project's mission is to provide civil legal assistance to active duty Armed Forces service members and veterans who are serving or have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom and/or their families living in Palm Beach County Specifically, the Armed Services Advocacy Project will provide legal advice, education, counsel, and representation with regard to pre-deployment, deployment and post-deployment issues, free of charge.

Legal services offered to personnel and/or their family members will include access to benefits, benefit denials, disability determinations, discharge matters, housing and financial issues, access to health care and mental health resources, employment rights and much more. Individuals may also receive assistance with specialized military issues including navigating the physical disability evaluation system, appealing involuntary administrative separations, defending inappropriate discharge, discharge characterization, or disability rating and filing claims for Traumatic Injury Insurance Under the Service Members Group Life Insurance, TSGLI.

The ultimate goal of the Armed Service Advocacy Project is to improve the lives of Palm Beach County residents who have served or are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and their families through legal intervention aimed at providing safer living conditions, meeting medical needs or reducing the time and frustration involved in navigating social services and veterans' assistance systems.

Madam Speaker, I am quite familiar with the problems active duty and retired service members have faced with these issues. I am delighted to know that the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, an old and very trusted agency, has created the Armed Services Advocacy Project, and I wish them great success with their efforts on behalf of one of America's most beloved and respected populations.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Congress 2014 Commission Act of 2009. This bill establishes a commission to study and make recommendations on the size of the House of Representatives, the method by which representatives are chosen, and opportunities for greater citizen participation in our democratic process.

The fact of the matter is that the United States is the second least representative democracy in the world. The House of Representatives has not changed size in 99 years. During those 99 years the United States has added four additional states. During those 99 years the population of the United States has tripled. And yet, during those 99 years, the House has only rarely even considered increasing its size.

The United States prides itself on the success of our democratic experiment, and as the world's first democratic Nation we claim the title of ``Leader of the Free World.'' Unfortunately, when it comes to democratic representation, we are not the leader. Indeed, we are second to last amongst the major democracies. Only India, with a population of almost 1.2 billion people, has a less representative government. Britain, France, Germany, Canada, South Africa, Japan, Australia, Nigeria, Brazil--all these countries have more representative legislatures than the United States.

I am proud to represent almost 700,000 residents of Florida's 23rd Congressional District. I am pleased to devote my time and efforts working here in Washington on their behalf, and I do enjoy the opportunities that I have to connect directly with my constituents back home. But my counterparts in the countries I just mentioned represent far less people than I do, ensuring that their constituents not only have easier access to their representatives but also the ability to develop stronger personal relationships.

Madam Speaker, 99 years is too long to go without making necessary improvements to our democratic process. Enlarging the House of Representatives is an essential step in that direction. An increase in the size of the House will have a profound impact on our political system. The benefits include greater access and personal interaction for our constituents, reduced campaign spending, smaller Congressional districts, and, most importantly, better representation for the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 876 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, Madam Speaker.

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 876.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 876 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. The resolution waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Finally, the resolution provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motion, except for 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit, if applicable.

This conference report makes available the necessary resources for the

Federal Government to protect our Nation's precious natural resources. It also provides to ensure clean and safe drinking water, to perform critical restoration work, and help Native American communities meet their needs.

It will help communities and public lands by focusing on five priority areas: water infrastructure and environmental protection; fire fighting and fuels reduction on Federal land; bolstering our public land management agencies; protecting public lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and helping the most vulnerable Native American populations. Together, these priorities and their attendant policies provide for effective Federal stewardship of our environmental and cultural treasures while also improving the lives of all Americans who depend on these resources for their health and well-being.

Madam Speaker, it's worth noting some of the critical investments that the underlying legislation makes in essential programs and agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency receives over $10 billion to restore and protect the quality of our Nation's air, water and land, including over $3.5 billion to help nearly 1,500 communities improve their drinking water and wastewater systems. Improving our Nation's water quality will have a direct and positive impact on overall public health, making this funding crucial to the bettering of the lives of all Americans. The EPA is also provided with increased funding to protect important bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay, as well as significant funding to clean up dangerous toxic waste sites around the country.

Important climate change programs are also funded in this legislation, including money to implement the Energy Independence and Security Act, which will help the United States produce 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Thousands of communities and millions of individual consumers will be able to receive assistance from the EPA to lower their emissions and adopt green technologies.

Native American and Native Alaskan programs receive hundreds of millions in increased funding from previous years, with an emphasis on supporting both federally and tribally operated health care programs, as well as bolstering law enforcement, education, and economic development programs throughout the country.

Recognizing the need for a dedicated, steady and predictable funding stream for wildfire suppression and firefighting activities, this legislation includes the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009. In light of recent increases in the length, severity and exponential cost of wildfire seasons, the FLAME Act includes a number of budgetary reforms to ensure that government agencies and local communities will have the necessary resources to handle large and complex fire events.

It is also worth noting that this legislation funds the Smithsonian to the appropriate level of support for the world's largest museum and research complex right here in our Nation's Capital. Here in Washington, we see the fruits of these efforts every day up and down the National Mall, as do our constituents when they visit us, and I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of $20 million for planning and design of the new National Museum of African American History and Culture, which will be built on the Mall.

Madam Speaker, this legislation also includes the continuing resolution to fund government operations through December 18. Although we completed our appropriations work during the summer, this resolution is needed to allow our good friends in the other body, the Senate, more time to complete their work.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address this report's provisions regarding Guantanamo Bay. I spoke on this matter when I managed the rule for the conference report on Homeland Security Appropriations 2 weeks ago. This body seems fit to include language on Guantanamo Bay in every appropriations measure that comes before us. I appreciate that many of our colleagues have objections to the various aspects involved in closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo, which President Obama has promised to do by January of 2010. But as I have maintained before, the problem is the policy, not the place.

The debate over Guantanamo, in my opinion, is missing the larger picture, and that is the need to reform our entire detainment policy. Without a system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists wherever they are held, we are left with a broken system that has tarnished our image abroad and is used as a recruitment tool by al Qaeda and other groups which threaten our security. We need to deny them that image of America.

We need a judicial process that accomplishes three things: one, protects our national security by holding and prosecuting those who have committed crimes or who pose a threat to our country; two, upholds international standards of human rights by ensuring decent treatment and access to basic rights and resources; and three, strengthens our Nation's image as a country that upholds the rule of law. We must not resort to arbitrary justice, even while under threat. There is no reason why these three things cannot be accomplished, nor is there a reason to believe that American courts cannot deal judiciously with individuals suspected of criminal wrongdoing or acts of terrorism.

The appropriations season has so far brought forth a number of bills, almost all with language relating to Guantanamo. At some point, we're going to need to move beyond legislating this matter into appropriations bills and, instead, establish new policies and guidelines to bring our national security needs in line with our historic national values. This matter cannot be left only to the executive branch or the judiciary. Congress makes laws.

We have to put aside political posturing and ``gotcha'' on Guantanamo Bay and ``not in my backyard'' and, instead, work together to reform a broken system. To that end, I am pleased to have introduced H.R. 3728, the Detainment Reform Act, which I believe will move us forward on this matter. I urge my colleagues in this body to support this effort. And I might add, I have no pride of authorship. What I am talking about is trying to get past where we are in this ``not in my backyard'' and deal with the needed policy that will deal with people who will do harm to this country, whether they're in Guantanamo or Bagram or Leavenworth or wherever they may be held.

Ultimately, Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today provides the necessary funding to carry on our Nation's critical environmental protection efforts to ensure that all Americans will have access to clean water and safe communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to my good friend, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Dicks, I want to make a couple of points segueing off of my colleague's comments, those of my good friend Mr. Dreier regarding the continuing resolution.

He and I have been in this back-and-forth process for a very long time. One thing I know that my good friend

knows is that the continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government operating until we're able to complete the appropriations process. It must be passed this week and including it in the Interior conference report is just the most expedient way to get it to the President's desk. It will merely ensure that government programs remain funded through December 18 while we move quickly to fulfill our congressional responsibilities to provide funding for the rest of the fiscal year.

In the meantime, the continuing resolution in this conference report is basically a clean CR with the addition of several vital programs to ensure that people do not lose their housing, so that people have mortgage origination, so that the market remains stable, and so that small businesses are able to get loans in this period of economic turmoil.

One of the most important responsibilities of Congress is to keep the government running efficiently and effectively. Even under the best of circumstances--and I've seen it now for coming up on 19 years--and with cooperation on both sides of the aisle, the annual appropriations process is a cumbersome and time-consuming process that must be completed with a relatively short lifetime.

Now, while I agree with my colleague from San Dimas--he's not on the floor. He is, but he's busy--his staff will tell him that we have, as he put it, a supermajority in the Democratic Party. We have the White House; we have the House of Representatives; and we have 60 votes, ostensibly, in the United States Senate. That is a good thing but I was here when the Republicans had the exact same thing and had control of both Houses. What they did not have was the 60 votes.

Now, what I want to make clear here for the American people so that we can get past this discussion, talking about 60 votes is not what is needed. You really don't need but 50 because the Vice President probably would vote with his party. Some would advocate that we do this measure this way because 67 percent, it seems, of the American public want us to move on the health care provision.

All things considered, what my colleague knows and what all of us in the House of Representatives know at every level is that the Senate is the other body, and each one of those Senators is an entity unto him- or herself. I refer to them as junior Presidents. They have enormous power. They have enormous independence, and it does not matter what party they're in when they are about the business of legislating what they want done. That's why the process has slowed down, not because of a majority. It has been slowed down forever, since I've been here--all of that time--for the reason that there is the other body that has their rules, their regulations, arcane though they may be, which make it difficult for us to do our business.

The House can pass stuff. The Senate has difficulty getting agreements to get to the numbers that are necessary to get past filibusters and the numbers to get the different things that each Senator wants for herself or himself in the measure.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, to one who has no peer in this body on the understanding of the Interior, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Dicks from the State of Washington.

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

Madam Speaker, by funding the EPA, the Department of the Interior, the Forest

Service and other related agencies, the conference report provides the resources necessary to protect the environment and our natural resources. The attached continuing resolution ensures that the government will continue to function through December 18th.

The increases in this bill over previous years are essential to maintain and improve current programs and activities, bettering the lives of all Americans and their communities.

As I discussed before, I hope that this body will move beyond the debate over whether or not to close Guantanamo and, instead, work to develop comprehensive detainment policies that uphold the Constitution, human rights and the rule of law.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here 18 years fighting for health care for Americans. There are, regardless of whose numbers you use, millions of uninsured people in this country and tens of millions who are underinsured and have become, in many respects, the prime justification for moving forward with one of the most aggressive health care reform agendas in modern history.

However, despite the unquestionable need for intervention, some have sought to dominate the health care debate with fear-mongering, misinformation, and blind opposition to key reform elements without offering substantive and high-quality alternatives. This perpetuation of fictions and misinterpretations is off base and has steered the health care discussion off course.

One thing I asked Americans all summer long as we got to this point was name me the day in the last 10 years that your health care went down. Name the day. You name the day.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Republics of Armenia and Turkey for their ongoing efforts to open their joint border and normalize relations. On October 10, 2009, they signed protocols in Zurich, Switzerland, which establish diplomatic ties and reopen a border that has been closed since 1993. While the negotiations have at times been difficult and emotional, the agreement is an important first step

to restoring full diplomatic relations between these neighboring states.

Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her leadership in helping to move the process forward. In this connection, I would like to submit an October 14, 2009 Washington Post editorial entitled, ``Opening a Border.'' The article does an excellent job of detailing the deft diplomatic work of Secretary Clinton to assist Turkey and Armenia in taking this historic step.

As the article states, the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia is critical to the United States since it promotes stability in the Caucasus region and could provide new avenues for gas and oil export to the West.

In closing, I commend Secretary Clinton and her colleagues at the State Department and offer my full support for their valiant efforts. The protocols have been sent to the parliaments of the respective countries. I hope they will be ratified quickly and open the door to a new era of diplomacy and friendship.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 14, 2009]

Opening a Border

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton executed some

deft diplomancy last weekend as the leaders of Turkey and

Armenia signed a potentially historic deal to establish

normal diplomatic relations and reopen their borders. We say

``potentially'' because there are some big obstacles to

implementing the accord, which we'll come back to. But Ms.

Clinton helped to ensure that the signing ceremony in Zurich

went forward after four hours of last-minute mediation. Not

for the first time in her short tenure, she proved capable of

overcoming an impasse and teasing out of a favorable outcome

of the United States.

The rapprochement between these two nations matters to the

United States for a number of reasons. It could help

stabilize the volatile Caucasus region, open the way for new

corridors for the export of gas and oil to the West, ease

Russian's political domination of Armenia and remove a major

irritant from U.S. relations with Turkey. The Obama

administration worked diligently to promote the accord: Ms.

Clinton made 29 phone calls to the leaders of the two

nations. President Obama played a part by sidestepping a

campaign promise to formally recognize the mass killing of

Armenians by Turks during World War I as ``genocide.''

The genocide issue--and the refusal of some in the American

Armenian community to compromise on it--still threaten to

undo the deal. The opening of the border, closed since 1993,

would be a huge benefit to impoverished and landlocked

Armenia. But there is resistance to a provision of the

accords that would set up a joint commission to study the

study of the massacres. Opponents say this could give Turkey,

which denies that a genocide took place, a means to

filibuster the issue--and to stop the annual attempt by some

in the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution declaring that

genocide occurred. In fact, the issue is one best left to the

two countries; that several U.S. Armenian groups have

endorsed the accord is a victory for common sense.

A more formidable obstacle to the deal may be Armenian's

unresolved dispute with another neighbor, Azerbaijan, over

the ethnically Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is

occupied by Armenian along with neighboring Azeri territory.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan took the

courageous step of declining to make the settlement of this

``frozen conflict'' a precondition to his accord with

Armenia--therby inviting the wrath of Azerbaijan, which is an

ally and energy supplier to Turkey. But Mr. Erdogan has

said--most recently last Sunday--that his government will not

go forward with the deal unless Armenia executes at last a

partial withdrawal from Azerbaijan. That would be a tough

step for Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and require

considerable international support: more delicate work for

Ms. Clinton.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2009, which directs the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress examining the Coast Guard's ability to respond to the effects of possible changes to U.S. immigration policies toward Haiti.

While it is certainly responsible to examine a worst-case scenario, my amendment also asks that the study look at what has happened in past experiences as we discuss the anticipated repercussions of changes in our immigration policy.

Changes in policies affecting Haiti are nothing new. In fact, it was just over 10 years ago that we here in Congress passed the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act, which affected far more Haitian nationals than any of the currently proposed policies would affect.

I firmly believe that what happened then and our current relations with the Haitian government will result in little change, if not a decrease, in Haitian interdictions.

However, my assurances are not enough.

Those who are critical or skeptical of Temporary Protected Status for Haitians often claim that any change could result in a massive surge, or might completely overwhelm the Coast Guard.

This is in spite of the fact that when we last adjusted the status of thousands of Haitian immigrants, we actually saw a decrease in interdictions, and despite the assurances from the Haitian government that they will do their part to ensure their citizens are aware that no new immigrants would qualify.

However, as of now, we have little more than speculation to ascertain what the results would be.

My amendment will help provide us with an objective perspective on the Coast Guard's expectations and their ability to continue to effectively guard our maritime borders.

TPS, or some other comparable relief, for our Haitian neighbors is long overdue and this administration has been stalling for far too long.

This study will hopefully help us show that our government has rationally and realistically examined all possible scenarios and we are well equipped to contend with any possible effects.

Mr. Chair, my amendment furthers this bill's commitment to ensuring the safety of those traveling on the high seas and protecting our national security, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate a fine young man, Jake Schultz, on his receiving an award of recognition from the National Elementary School Honors Society. A fifth-grade student at Sagemont School in Weston, Florida, Jake, and 24 of his classmates, has received this honor for outstanding academic achievement and for demonstrating responsibility at home, school, and in his community. While Jake's mother, my esteemed friend and colleague, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, insisted on there being no official recognition, I nevertheless equally insist on acknowledging Jake's stellar accomplishments. I know that both of his parents are extremely proud.

Jake has demonstrated leadership and accomplishment not only through his hard work in school and excellent grades but also through his community activism. Jake's community service includes the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life, the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, the Turkey Trot for Kids in Distress, and his work with a Miami orphanage.

There is an old saying that ``all work and no play makes a dull boy.'' To that end, I should point out that Jake also excels in his efforts outside the classroom. He enjoys playing shortstop for the Hawks, a local baseball all-star travel team, where he has served as both captain and co-captain. Both he and his sister, Rebecca, attend Hebrew School twice a week and have a demonstrated commitment to their faith, family, and friends.

Jake sets an excellent example for his friends and peers in his approach to leadership. I applaud Jake for this honor that he has worked so hard to achieve, and I urge him to continue his dedication to academic achievement and community and public service.