Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have a very simple amendment today. It's the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Amendment. This amendment would allow trained medical professionals to volunteer across State lines to assist in Presidentially declared Federal disaster sites.

My colleagues, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw firsthand how much of a demand there is for trained professionals at disaster sites and how there is a need to provide liability protection for these very experienced individuals.

According to the Council of State Governments, the most pressing need immediately after Katrina was the availability of medical volunteers. However, out-of-state practitioners providing medical treatment face the real possibility of noncoverage under their medical malpractice policies. Those that volunteer and treat the sick are at risk of violating existing statutes and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liabilities.

A Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, ran a story in September 2005 that talked about Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who was in the midst of giving a woman chest compressions when FEMA asked him to stop because of issues of liability protection.

CNN ran a story about a doctor who was evacuated to the New Orleans' airport. The doctor was amazed to see hundreds of sick people and wanted to help them. He wanted to ply his professional talents and heal the sick, but

was prevented from doing so because of legal liability. ``They told us, you know, you could help us by mopping the floor,'' and that's what he was forced to do. And so he mopped the floor while people died all around him.

What was the cost of inaction because of the litigious society that we have? It's incidents like these, my colleagues, that's why I introduced the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act, H.R. 3586. It's a very simple bill, and its the foundation for this amendment to the PATH Act.

This amendment would allow medical professionals to volunteer at disaster sites. It would provide limited civil liability protection to medical volunteers who act on a good faith effort.

This is limited protection. It still allows victims to sue for serious acts such as criminal misconduct, reckless misconduct, or gross negligence. It does not cover criminal acts by health volunteers.

You shouldn't have someone that spent years in college, years in medical school, through residency, spent years as a practicing physician, push a mop when there's clear need for their services. This is wrong, and my amendment will correct that.

My colleague from Utah Mr. Matheson and myself have a very simple amendment today. It is the Good Samaritan Health Professional Amendment. This amendment would allow trained medical professionals to volunteer across State lines to assist at presidentially declared disaster sites.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw first hand how much of a demand there is for trained professionals at disaster sites and how there is a need to provide liability protection.

According to the Council of State Governments, the most pressing need immediately after Katrina was the availability of medical volunteers.

However, out-of-State practitioners providing medical treatment face the real possibility of non-coverage under their medical malpractice policies. Those that volunteer and treat the sick are at risk of violating existing statues and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liability.

A Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, ran a story in September 2005 that talked about Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who was in the midst of giving a woman chest compressions when FEMA asked him to stop because of issues of liability protection.

CNN ran a story about a doctor who was evacuated to the New Orleans airport. The doctor was amazed to see hundreds of sick people and wanted to help. He wanted to ply his profession and heal the sick, but was prevented from doing so because of legal liability. ``They told us, you know, you could help us by mopping the floor.'' And so he mopped the floors while people died around him.

What was the cost of inaction because of our litigious society?

Its incidents like this, that's why I introduced the Good Samaritan Health Professional Act, H.R. 3586. It's a very simple bill, and it's the foundation for this amendment to the PATH Act.

This amendment would allow medical professionals to volunteer at disaster sites. It would provide limited civil liability protection to medical volunteers who act on a good faith effort.

This is limited protection. It still allows victims to sue for serious acts such, as criminal misconduct, reckless misconduct or gross negligence. It does not cover criminal acts by health volunteers.

But for everyone working in good faith and doing the right thing, it will provide this basic protection to any trained medical volunteer. It will protect:

Doctors, nurses or physician assistants that treat the injured;

The psychiatrist, psychologist or therapist that provide emotional assistance to those grieving, and;

The pharmacists or respiratory therapists that helps treat chronic conditions like diabetes or COPD.

You shouldn't have someone that spent years in college, years in medical school, been through residency, and spent years as a practicing physician, push a mop when there is a clear need for their services.

This is wrong, and my amendment will correct this.

The Good Samaritan Health Professional Amendment has a broad coalition of supporters. They include:

The American College of Surgeons

The American Medical Association

The American Hospital Association

The College of Emergency Physicians

The Neurologists

The Physician Insurers Association

The Roundtable of Critical Care

These are just a sample; there are more medical groups that support this amendment. I also would like to submit these letters of support into the Record.

This is a good amendment. It will save lives.

American College of Surgeons,

March 21, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the more than 78,000 members

of the American College of Surgeons (ACS), I would like to

express our support for amending H.R. 5, the Protecting

Access to Healthcare (PATH) Act of 2011 to include H.R. 3586,

the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act of 2011 (Stearns/

Matheson Amendment). The ACS supports this amendment which

would ensure disaster victims' access to medically necessary

care in a declared emergency.

Rapid medical response in a disaster can greatly decrease

loss of life and improve outcomes for patients who

desperately need assistance. Surgeons in particular, with

their training in trauma and critical care, play a major role

in the health care community's response to most disaster

situations. Properly trained volunteers are critical in such

circumstances.

However, due to inconsistent state laws and lack of federal

policy, it is often unclear whether protections against

unnecessary lawsuits exist for medical volunteers who cross

state lines. Sadly, this lack of uniformity has greatly

hindered the ability of volunteer health professionals to

provide care; in some cases, volunteer health professionals

have even been turned away due to uncertainty about potential

liability.

Enactment of the Stearns/Matheson amendment would provide

volunteer health professionals with the same level of civil

immunity that they have in their home state when they provide

urgently needed care in a declared emergency. Removing

barriers that prohibit licensed surgeons and other qualified

health care professionals from voluntarily administering

medically necessary care during disasters will ensure

citizens access to high-quality surgical services in the

event of a crisis.

Again, we strongly support the Stearns/Matheson amendment

to H.R. 5 and look forward to working with you to ensure its

enactment.

Sincerely,

David B. Hoyt, MD, FACS,

Executive Director.

Madam Chairman, how much time do I have left on my side?

The one thing I would say to the gentleman, this is not unlimited. As I pointed out, there are provisions to allow for stipulations.

I yield 1 minute to the cosponsor on the Democrat side, Mr. Matheson from Utah.

Mr. Conyers, the point is this is a Federal disaster, and a Federal disaster like Katrina, in which the Federal Government is involved, you want to have a bill that's a Federal bill.

Madam Chairman, I'd just say that the 50 State laws are not allowing a physician to help. He has to mop the floors.

I yield 45 seconds to Mr. Franks from Arizona. He's chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

This bill, contrary to what the gentleman from Texas said, is an opportunity for him to vote to not let bureaucrats make the decision. He has a chance to do this. I'm a little surprised why he's saying he's against the bill. Of course, I think many of us are going to repeat the same arguments.

The fundamental point is that this bill will save almost $50 billion over 10 years. How many people on this side don't want to save money? I think everybody on both sides of the aisle would like to save money. So this is stopping defensive medicine and untold amount of litigation by passing this bill. This could effectively create lower premiums for everybody and lower the cost of health care.

This bill would eliminate, as pointed out even by the gentleman from Texas, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, given the colloquial name of IPAB. Just this morning, as chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Committee, we held a hearing on the President's failed health care law. It's clear that countless pages of regulation, rules, and requirements for ObamaCare have been incredibly confusing. When we had this hearing, it was brought up clearly that this bill, over 2 years old, has given almost 1,700 waivers to entities who cannot comply with this health care bill.

So my constituents and individuals throughout this country view these massive new rules and regulations as increasing interference by the Federal Government into their lives. And, obviously, business communities are seeking waivers. Seventeen hundred entities are asking for waivers because they can't comply. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace.

So for all these reasons we must pass this bill. In fact, IPAB is SGR on steroids. Rather than fixing the SGR problem in the health care law, Democrats are happy to allow continued cuts to physician payments and then double down on further cuts through IPAB. This is a group of 15 unelected bureaucrats who would save Medicare by making draconian cuts to provider payments. Democrats wanted to control the future cost of Medicare by giving unelected, bureaucrats the power to cut payments to hospitals and to our doctors.

If Democrats were serious, they would support this bill. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker and minority leader said, ``We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it.'' Remember that quote?

I am determined to make sure we don't have to fully implement the bill so we can see what it costs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 665, the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2011. This important bipartisan legislation will decrease the deficit by selling excess federal buildings and property by empowering the executive branch to more quickly dispose of excess federal property. This bill would also permanently modernize the existing disposal process through reductions in administrative overhead. This bill also requires greater accountability from those responsible for federal property disposal.

The federal government owns a staggering one-third of the United States and owns more real property than any other entity in America: 900,000 buildings and structures covering 3.38 billion square feet. According to a February 10, 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, 24 federal agencies identified 45,190 underutilized buildings that cost $1.66 billion annually to operate. More recently, Office of Management and Budget Comptroller Daniel Werfel testified before a Senate Subcommittee that the government controls even more, with 14,000 excess buildings and structures and 76,000 underutilized properties. This large inventory of underutilized federal property is the product of a convoluted and inefficient disposal process.

H.R. 665 works to correct this by establishing a five-year pilot program, beginning on the date that the legislation is enacted, to dispose of excess federal property. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) would identify, with input from federal agencies, the 15 excess properties with the highest market value. These properties will be disposed of through public auction, and after one property is sold, the GSA will have 15 days to identify another property to replace the auctioned property on the list for disposal. Ninety-eight percent of profits will be deposited into the Treasury and 2 percent will be directed toward the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide grants for homeless assistance.

Selling off unused federal property would allow the federal government to focus our limited fiscal resources on maintaining the property the United States currently owns. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act to begin prioritizing the public auction of unused federal property and reducing the nation's $15 trillion national debt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Clay County Detective David White who was killed in the line of duty on February 16, 2012 at age 35. Detective White and his partner, Detective Matt Hanlin, were in the process of breaking up a meth lab in Middleburg, Florida. Detective Hanlin was shot in the arm and is expected to recover. White is the first Clay County deputy shot on duty in nearly 40 years and the first killed in the line of duty since 1913. He is not only a hero as part of the Clay County Sheriff's Office, but also in his service as a specialist in the U.S. Army Reserve as a military police platoon team leader in deployments to Croatia, Bosnia and Iraq. He is survived by his wife and two children, ages 3 months and 2 years old; he and his family are in our prayers. David's life is a testament to the courage and sense of duty that men and women possess, who chose to dedicate their lives to defend us all. His tragic death is not in vain but a tribute to the highest ideals of self-sacrifice for freedom and justice. God Bless him.

Madam Speaker, despite the Obama administration's recent actions to disguise their attempt to force contraceptive coverage on religious institutions, the American people will not be fooled.

The Obama administration has gone out of its way to impose its radical agenda on Americans. While some religious exemptions exist for churches, affiliated institutions such as religious hospitals or schools would not be exempt from this overreaching mandate. In fact, New York Bishop Timothy Dolan summed it up when he said:

Never before has the Federal Government forced individuals

and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a

product that violates their own conscience. This shouldn't

happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first

in the Bill of Rights.

This administration has shown no restraint in expanding the size, scope, and power of the Federal Government. We must repeal this law and restore religious freedom to religiously affiliated institutions in this country.

Madam Chair, we need to repeal this bad legislation. As Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, we looked into the CLASS Act and the actions of HHS. We issued a bicameral report on the failures of this fiscally reckless program.

Some Senate Democrats expressed that they ``had grave concerns that the real effect of the [CLASS Act] would be to create a new federal entitlement with large, long-term spending increase that far exceed revenues.''

Perhaps the most damning indictment came from the Senate Budget Chairman who characterized CLASS Act as ``a ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.''

This legislation is so fiscally unsound that even the Secretary of HHS has announced that she does ``not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.'' This despite all her statements in support of CLASS when the Democrats were ramming Obamacare down our throat.

Under CBO rules, the CLASS failure will cost American taxpayers $86 billion--the most recent CBO project of the supposed savings from the CLASS Act. However, if CLASS had gone into effect, it would have increased our deficit by the third decade.

We need to repeal this fiscally unsound entitlement. We need to stop wasteful spending. We need to bring our country back to the path of fiscal responsibility and repealing CLASS is an important first step.

Mr. Speaker, it was April 29, 2009, 1,000 days ago, when the Democrat-controlled Senate last passed a budget. Back then, Solyndra was not a household name. General Motors was not yet bankrupt. Billy Mays was still selling OxyClean, and my good friend, Tebow from Gainesville--no one knew about Tebowtime.

Since then, the Federal Government has added $4.1 trillion to the national debt. Our fiscal situation is in shambles. Entitlement spending is growing while defense spending is being cut, and the policies of a bigger and bigger government and higher taxes have not been successful.

When the Senate last passed a budget, CBO predicted that the deficit for 2011 would be $693 billion. Today, it's $1.3 trillion. A budget is the first and

most basic step that must be taken towards reining in historically high levels of spending and massive government growth.

It is time for the Senate to do their job.

Mr. Speaker, our economy today continues to suffer after shocks from the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. Today we understand a series of mistakes were made in the past decade which led to our current financial crisis.

Now the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, FCIC, was given the task to investigate the causes of the meltdown of our financial institutions. Though the commission was unsuccessful in reaching a certain consensus of the exact cause, they did, however, conclude that the financial crisis was avoidable and was the result of the following factors, an explosion in risky subprime lending, an unsustainable rise in housing prices, widespread reports of egregious and predatory lending practices, dramatic increases in household mortgage debt, and exponential growth in financial firms' trading activities, unregulated derivatives, and short-term repo lending markets, just among a few of the red flags. Surely with all those factors Chairman Bernanke should have been more concerned.

In fact, the title of my speech this morning is, ``Even with Warning Signs, Bernanke Failed to Sound the Alarm.'' In fact, he was warned by members of the Federal Reserve Board often. The release of transcripts from the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, meetings in 2006 shed light on the critical failures of the Federal Reserve and Mr. Bernanke to act when the warning signs were clear and present. The first meeting, however, was spent praising Bernanke's predecessor, outgoing Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan. But the FCIC later concluded that 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions that was championed by Mr. Greenspan were the factors in devastating the stability of our Nation's market, stripping away safeguards that simply could have avoided this catastrophe.

Now in a later meeting on May 10, 2006, of the FOMC, then Fed Governor Susan Bies was one of the earliest to raise concern over the Nation's mortgage sector, which offered exotic loans that increased household debt over time instead of decreasing it. Now, specifically, her concerns stem from the absence of home equity growth, and the consumer's ability to absorb the uncertainties of the housing market. Listen to Mr. Bernanke's response when she made her declaration. ``So far we are seeing, at worst, an orderly decline in the housing market; but there is still, I think, a lot to be seen as to whether the housing market will decline slowly or more quickly.''

Yet again another colleague, then Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, warns of the possibility of ``an unwelcome housing slump.'' But in the meeting of August 8, 2006, Chairman Bernanke remains hopeful in his prediction for a ``soft landing'' for our economy. Need I say the 2008 Great Recession was not a soft landing? In the September meeting, the Feds still remained oblivious to the detrimental effects in the housing market that will affect the rest of the economy.

In the last meeting, Mr. Speaker, of the FOMC, Fed Governor Bies again, in December 2006, stated once again her concern of the housing market, stating that mortgages securitized in the past few years warrants additional risk than the investors have been focusing on. Despite the concerns that reported increased difficulty getting mortgages in their region, as well as a noticeable cool down in housing activity, Mr. Bernanke fails to see the warning signs and, again, predicts a soft landing on December 12, 2006, once again. This was his second statement of a soft landing in the same year.

It was the failure of Mr. Bernanke to not pursue possible vulnerabilities and assuring us to the contrary that attributed to the economic crisis that we faced. On February 15, 2007, he stated ``Overall economic prospects for households remains good. The labor market is expected to stay healthy. And real incomes should continue to rise. The business sector remains in excellent financial condition.'' Again, on March 28, 2007, he stated, ``The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained.'' Even on May 17, 2007, despite concerns raised by Fed Governor Bies again, he said, ``We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.'' How wrong he was. But all of the dire warning signs were there.

At Bernanke's confirmation hearing in the Senate Banking Committee, he conceded to the notion that the central bank ``should have done more.'' That's an understatement. The Fed had the authority and necessary power to prevent further abuses happening in the financial industry, but simply chose to ignore critical warning signs. Bernanke agrees he missed the warning signs, but thinks he can prevent a further crisis. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that he, being Chairman, is going to prevent a further crisis and, frankly, I'm sure he failed to sound the alarm of the 2008 Great Recession.

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes numbered 913 through 916. For the record, had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 913--H.R. 3220, to designate the Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office--``aye''; rollcall 914--H.R. 2158, to designate the Wayne Grisham Post Office--``aye''; rollcall 915--Approval of the Journal--``aye''; rollcall 916--Motion to Adjourn--``nay.''

I thank my distinguished colleague.

You know, I say to my colleagues on the Democrat side, we can sit here and blame Bush; we can sit here, on our side we could blame President Obama; and we can have this high rhetoric talking about this issue but now is the time to get serious. But we are in a very precarious situation. This is all different with a debt to GDP ratio at 100 percent.

When you look at the statistics and you say, well, look, what's going to happen in this country in 10 years, in 10 years 95 percent of all Federal tax revenues will be consumed by payments of interest on the national debt and mandatory programs like Social Security. I think you would agree with that. Medicare and Medicaid are also there. This will leave just about 5 percent of our annual tax revenue available for funding national defense and other essential functions of the government. So this is an attempt here today, a very sober attempt, to control federal budgets and do this through a balanced budget amendment.

Now, you make a valid argument about the difference of these 49 States having an operational balanced budget, which is they don't have a capital outlay balanced budget. I understand that argument. But also, with this constitutional amendment, we are projecting an attempt to have a rainy-day fund, where we set aside money for these emergencies we all worry about. So you cannot hang your whole argument on the difference between the state operational budgets and a state capital budget and a federal budget as a reason for not voting for this because we are at such dire extreme situations.

And talking about Founding Fathers, they understood the perils associated with debt. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, ``The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.''

We need to come together and understand that this is not business as usual like when we voted for the constitutional amendment some 16 years ago. This is a precarious moment in history. We do not think we can go forward without controlling our spending, and this is a legitimate attempt to do so. I think the high rhetoric on both sides of blaming different Presidents and talking about the past is gone. We're talking about the future.

I urge you to support this resolution.

I would say to my colleague, I'm from Florida, and I'm supporting this bill. In fact, I'm the proud sponsor of this bill, ladies and gentlemen. I have sponsored this legislation since the 105th Congress--that's almost 14 years ago--because I believe it's long overdue that we take action to enhance the fundamental right of self- defense for all law-abiding citizens of this country.

I want to thank Mr. Trent Franks from Arizona for his assiduous and hard work in pushing this through the full committee and subcommittee, and I also thank Chairman Lamar Smith for his efforts, too.

My colleagues, the right--the simple right--to defend yourself and your loved ones from a criminal is fundamental. And it's not extinguished when you simply cross a State border. This bill recognizes this important fact by establishing the interstate recognition of concealed-carry permits in much the same way driver's licenses are recognized.

Now under this legislation, lawfully issued carry permits will be recognized in all States that also issue carry permits. There are now 49 States that issue these permits. Most of these States also recognize permits issued from at least some other States, while some States recognize all valid permits issued by any State. But herein, simply, lies the problem. The nonuniformity of the laws regarding reciprocity makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if they are obeying the law as they travel from State to State. While preserving the power of the States to set the rules on where concealed firearms can be carried, this legislation will establish interstate carry permit recognition in the 49 permit issuing States. So this legislation will simply make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel this wonderful country of ours.

Now consider the outcome if States administered driver's licenses as they currently do carry permits. Drivers would have to stop at the State line to determine whether their license was valid before proceeding. Each State would recognize some licenses but, of course, not all of them. Some States would insist that others have precisely the same requirements for issuance of a license before offering reciprocity. And the status of such reciprocity would be constantly changing, literally day to day.

So that is the reality of the current State reciprocity agreements for carry permits today. And only the Congress can remedy this interstate muddle. Our Union is a strong one, and we are proud to be citizens of a Nation who need not present papers to cross internal boundaries. But the holders of carry permits must indeed today worry whether their permits are valid before they can safely venture out of their home State while exercising a fundamental right. Our system of federalism beckons this body

to remedy this disparity in due process and equal treatment under the law.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, 17 States have passed right-to- carry laws. In each of these States, opponents of firearms ownership have made dire predictions of mayhem in the streets if we simply dared to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for their own self- defense. But in each case, these predictions were proven to be completely false. In fact, during that period, violent crime has dropped 51 percent to a 46-year low--1991 to 2011--and these are according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Statistics don't lie in this case. They are actually showing violent crime has dropped, and this is one of the reasons.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will not strip States of the ability to prohibit dangerous persons from carrying a firearm. Federal law already prohibits a convicted felon or someone shown to be a danger from the mere possession of a gun, and the carry regulations set up in each State will apply to all permit holders, both residents and nonresidents. This bill does not set up a Federal carry permit system or establish any Federal regulations of concealed-carry permits. That power remains with the States. Additionally, this legislation does not include any new Federal gun laws, nor does it call for additional Federal regulation of gun ownership. In fact, it does not allow for new Federal regulation, for it amends the part of the Gun Control Act that allows only such regulation as is necessary, and in this case none.

My colleagues, this legislation simply guarantees citizens' constitutional rights as affirmed by two Supreme Court cases, D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which simply ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right.

This bill will allow law-abiding citizens who already have valid carry permits to carry firearms when they travel to protect themselves and to protect their families. These are people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our communities, and we should not deprive them of this fundamental right when they simply cross a State border.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. It's a long time in coming, I'm pleased it's on the floor, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of Florida's Student Body Government, and to submit for the record their resolution supporting the U.S. commitment to a negotiated settlement of Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The University of Florida Student Government was established in 1909, and represents the interests of the student body. As representatives for the students of the University of Florida, this student government body has put forth Resolution 2011-138, which calls for the continuation of peaceful negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and to oppose any attempt seeking a unilateral declaration of statehood from the United Nations.

The students of the University of Florida hereby resolve:

Resolution Supporting the U.S. Commitment to a Negotiated Settlement of Palestinian Conflict Through Direct Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations,

and Calling Upon the United States to Oppose Unilateral Palestinian

Efforts of Declaring Independence in the United Nations.

Whereas, a true and lasting peace between Israel and the

Palestinian people can only be achieved through direct

negotiations between two legitimate parties and the

acceptance of Israel's right to exist; and

Whereas, direct negotiations between two legitimate parties

to ensure an agreement that acknowledges both historical

territorial claims to land while also taking into account the

current demographic and security realities; and

Whereas, Hamas, an organization responsible for the death

of hundreds of Israeli and American civilians, has been

designated by the United States State Department as a Foreign

Terrorist Organization and is in control of the Gaza strip;

and

Whereas, Hamas has held merger talks with the Palestinian

Authority and continues to forcefully reject the possibility

of peace with Israel, and

Whereas, refusing to come to the table and negotiate

despite President Obama's direct request for a meeting

following the Israeli nine month settlement freeze, the

Palestinian Authority is preventing any constructive dialogue

from taking place that could eventually lead to the formation

of a Palestinian state; and

Whereas, the Palestinian Authority attempting to gain full

membership at the United Nations through a unilateral

declaration of statehood is counterproductive to the peace

process; and

Whereas, a poll done by the Palestinian Center for Public

Opinion showed that eighty-three percent of Palestinians

cited job creation as the most pressing issue, with only four

percent citing UN recognition of Palestinian statehood as the

most important; and

Whereas, of that same poll only forty percent of

Palestinians think that the UN vote will actually help to

bring about an independent Palestinian state; and

Whereas, the United States passed H. Res 268 and S. Bill

185 calling on the Administration to block the Palestinian

Authority's efforts at the United Nations, and to cut foreign

aid to the Palestinian Authority in the event of a unilateral

declaration, and

Whereas, the Obama administration has publicly criticized

the Palestinian Authority's push for an unsustainable

unilateral declaration, then be it

Resolved That the University of Florida Student Senate, on

behalf of the students of the University of Florida, join our

elected officials in support of a peaceful, two-state

solution through direct negotiations between the Palestinians

and Israelis; and be it further

Resolved That the students of the University of Florida

support a halt to any efforts for a unilateral declaration of

statehood at the United Nations and that the Palestinian

Authority terminates its association with Hamas, so that it

may be considered a legitimate partner for peace.

First of all, let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that you weren't here when it was passed. I am sure glad as heck that you're here today to provide this legislation and give respectful oversight to the taxpayers and help them out with trying to save money and being accountable. So it is a credit to you and your initiative to get this bill on the floor.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee for his initiative in getting this on the floor. It's something that, I think, we've wanted to do for a while; and between the leadership of Mr. Bass and the leadership of Mr. Walden, we've got this today.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Although the disabled have made significant progress in achieving the American Dream today, they still face unfairness in the workplace under a provision that allows employers to pay workers with disabilities less than the Federal minimum wage.

Protections for disabled workers were excluded in the Fair Labor Standards Act in the mistaken belief that they would not be as productive as other workers. That is why I offered the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act, along with my good colleague, Congressman Bishop of New York. This legislation would phase out the provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act that allows subminimum wage for disabled workers.

It is deplorable and wrong in America that these not-for-profit centers would hire people with disabilities, including the visually impaired, and pay them less than $1 an hour. Workers with disabilities contribute to our economy and to our society, and they deserve equal pay for equal work.