Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, since the founding of the State of Israel sixty two years ago, the United States has had no greater friend in the Middle East. The U.S.-Israeli friendship is based on shared democratic values, progress, and our hope for peace between nations. This friendship is buttressed by our nation's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has spurned the authoritarian model that dominates its region and has built a world-class civilization: a vibrant democracy, a thriving economy, and a culturally and academically rich society.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation. Nearly a quarter of the Israeli workforce holds university degrees, ranking Israel third in that category in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland. Israel also claims one of the world's highest numbers of books and museums per capita.

Over the last sixty two years Israel has become a global leader in medicine and technology. Israeli medicine and medical equipment is exported world wide. And Israeli technologies are protecting and assisting U.S. military personnel deployed around the globe.

High-tech companies are rushing to get an Israeli presence. In addition to boasting the highest density of start-ups in the world (a total of 3,850 start-ups, one for every 1,844 Israelis), more Israeli companies are listed on the NASDAQ exchange than all companies from the entire European continent.

Moreover, Israel is leading a green revolution with its high-tech companies and Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees.

The American people--and particularly the United States Congress-- have contributed mightily to Israel's sustenance and security over the years. Of that we are justifiably proud.

Still, despite its strength, Israel faces incredible challenges to its existence. The Islamic-militant group Hamas, which is determined to bring about Israel's destruction, remains in control of the Gaza strip and continues to plot against Israel. Hamas is actively working to disrupt the return to peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Hezbollah, which is sustained by Iran and supported by Syria, remains perched on Israel's northern border. As The New York Times recently noted, it is believed that Syria has delivered accurate long-distance Scud missiles to Hezbollah, placing cities deep in Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv, within range.

Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theologically-based state whose President has threatened to ``wipe Israel off the map'', is rapidly developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

In my view, there is no greater threat to Israel, the United States, and the world than the prospect of a nuclear Iran. For this reason, in the coming weeks the Congress will send President Obama legislation designed to strongly sanction Iran in order to cripple its nuclear weapons program. I am proud to be the sponsor of that legislation.

In closing, I congratulate Israel on its 62nd anniversary of independence. Today we reaffirm our nation's pledge to Israel: that we will stand in solidarity with Israel against all violent assaults on its security and well-being. Israel's security is America's security, Israel's hopes for peace are America's hopes for peace, and we will always stand side by side.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my friend Professor Steven Sample, on the occasion of his retirement from the University of Southern California. I have had the pleasure of working with him on many issues of concern to USC and educational reform, and I know firsthand of his many accomplishments.

In 1991, Professor Sample was appointed USC President. Under his leadership, USC has become world-renowned in the fields of communication and multimedia technologies, received national acclaim for its innovative community partnerships, and solidified its status as one of the nation's leading research universities.

President Sample transformed Jewish life at USC by bolstering the school's efforts to identify, reach, and direct talented Jewish students into community activities and involvement. He also attracted successful Jewish philanthropists, through the Board of Trustees, generating unparalleled financial support to the USC Hillel Foundation's schools, centers and institutes. President Sample is to be recognized for his role in building and supporting Jewish institutions on campus such as the Casden Institute, Chabad at USC, the Jewish Studies Department, and most recently, the Shoah Institute, as well as off campus institutions such as USC Hillel and Hebrew Union College.

Professor Sample is an extraordinary individual. In addition to being an electrical engineer he is a musician, outdoorsman, author, and inventor. In February 1998, he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering for his contributions to consumer electronics and leadership in interdisciplinary research and education. In 2003, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in recognition of his accomplishments as a university president.

Professor Sample has received numerous awards and great support from the community in recognition of his achievements. He recently received the Distinguished Business Leader Award from the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Heart of the City Award from the Central City Association of Los Angeles, and the Chancellor Charles P. Norton Medal, the highest award bestowed by the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has also received the Humanitarian Award from the National Conference for Community and Justice, the Hollzer Memorial Award from the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, and the Eddy Award for excellence in economic development from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Professor Sample for his impressive career and dedication to the people of Southern California, and congratulating him on the occasion of his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit this letter signed by 48 retired four- and three-star generals/flag officers urging Congress to support the President's FY11 International Affairs Budget request--given its importance to U.S. national security. These military leaders state that ``balancing our military power with the range of International Affairs programs funded by the International Affairs Budget is critical to stabilizing fragile states, combating terrorism, and deterring

threats before they reach America's shores.'' I couldn't agree more, and appreciate the hard work that these signatories and the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition have done to support our international affairs budget.

March 10, 2010.

Dear Member of Congress: As retired officers of the U.S.

military across all branches of the armed services, we are

writing to express our support for the President's FY 2011

International Affairs Budget request, a fundamental pillar of

U.S. national security and foreign policy. The critical

programs in the International Affairs Budget invest in the

non-military tools of development and diplomacy, foster

economic and political stability on a global scale,

strengthen our allies, and fight the spread of poverty,

disease, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Continuing the bipartisan precedent set by the Bush

Administration, the Obama Administration views the

International Affairs Budget as part of the national security

funding alongside Defense, Homeland Security, Intelligence,

and Veterans programs. However, the International Affairs

Budget remains underfunded, representing 1.4 percent of the

entire federal budget and less than 7 percent of our total

national security funding.

Our view is shared by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who

has stated that ``America's civilian institutions of

diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned

and underfunded for far too long--relative to what we

traditionally spend on the military, and more important,

relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation

has around the world.'' Secretary Gates and other military

leaders believe, as we do, that our national security is

dependent not only on a strong military force but also on

increased investments in the full range of diplomatic,

development and humanitarian tools funded through the

International Affairs Budget.

The United States must combine its strong military with

robust, effective civilian tools of international development

and diplomacy to secure its national interests in an era when

many of the challenges of the 21st century recognize no

borders. While our military power can provide the logistics

and organizational support to help those in need in times of

humanitarian crisis, as demonstrated by our current efforts

in Haiti, it can only help create the conditions necessary to

allow the other tools of statecraft--our diplomatic,

development and humanitarian programs--to effectively address

these issues.

Balancing our military power with the range of

International Affairs programs funded by the International

Affairs Budget is critical to stabilizing fragile states,

combating terrorism, and deterring threats before they reach

America's shores. Therefore, we urge you to support no less

than the Administration's request of $58.5 billion for the

International Affairs Budget.

Sincerely,

General Michael W. Hagee, USMC (Ret.), Co-Chair, National

Security Advisory Council; Admiral James M. Loy, USCG

(Ret.), Co-Chair, National Security Advisory Council;

Charles S. Abbot, USN (Ret.), Deputy Commander in

Chief, U.S. European Command ('98-'00); General John P.

Abizaid, USA (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Central Command

('03-'07); Admiral Frank L. Bowman, USN (Ret.),

Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion ('96-'04); General

Charles G. Boyd, USAF (Ret.), Deputy Commander in

Chief, U.S. European Command ('92-'95); Admiral Archie

R. Clemins, USN (Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S.

Pacific Fleet ('96-'99); General Richard A. ``Dick''

Cody, USA (Ret.), Vice Chief of Staff, United States

Army ('04-'08); Lieutenant General John B. Conaway,

USAF (Ret.), Chief, National Guard Bureau ('90-'93);

General Richard D. Hearney, USMC (Ret.), Assistant

Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ('94-'96); General James

T. Hill, USA (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Southern Command

('02-'04); Admiral James R. Hogg, USN (Ret.), U.S.

Military Representative, NATO Military Committee ('88-

'91); General James L. Jamerson, USAF (Ret.), Deputy

Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command ('95-'98);

Admiral Gregory G. Johnson, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Naval Forces Europe/Commander in Chief, Allied Forces

Southern Europe ('01-'04); Admiral Jerome L. Johnson,

USN (Ret.), Vice Chief of Naval Operations ('90-'92);

General John P. Jumper, USAF (Ret.), Chief of Staff,

U.S. Air Force ('01-'05).

Lieutenant General Jeffrey W. Oster, USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Administrator and Chief Operating Officer, Coalition

Provisional Authority, Iraq (2004); Deputy Commandant

for Programs and Resources, Headquarters Marine Corps

(ended in '98); Lieutenant General Charles P. Otstott,

USA (Ret.), Deputy Chairman, NATO Military Committee

('90-'92); Admiral William A. Owens, USN (Ret.), Vice

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff ('94-'96); Admiral

Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S.

Pacific Command ('96-'99); Lieutenant General Harry D.

Raduege, Jr., USAF (Ret.), Director, Defense

Information Systems Agency ('00-'05); Manager, National

Communications System ('00-'03); Commander, Joint Task

Force for Global Network Operations ('04-'05); Vice

Admiral Norman W. Ray, USN (Ret.), Deputy Chairman,

NATO Military Committee ('92-'95); General Robert W.

RisCassi, USA (Ret.), Commander in Chief, United

Nations Command/Commander in Chief, Republic of Korea/

U.S. Combined Forces Command ('92-'93); Lieutenant

General John Costello, USA (Ret.), Commanding General,

U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/U.S. Army

Space Command ('98-'01); Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr.,

USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Strategic Command ('02-

'04); Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, USN (Ret.), Commander,

U.S. Pacific Command ('02-'05); Admiral S. Robert

Foley, USN (Ret.), Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific

Fleet ('82-'85); Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard,

Jr., USA (Ret.), President, National Defense University

('77-'81); Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN

(Ret.), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

('05-'07); Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.),

Inspector General, U.S. Navy ('97-'00); General Michael

W. Hagee, USMC (Ret.), Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps

('03-'06); General Richard E. Hawley, USAF (Ret.),

Commander, Air Combat Command ('96-'99).

General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.), Commanding General,

U.S. Army Materiel Command ('01-'04); General William

F. Kernan, USA (Ret.), Supreme Allied Commander,

Atlantic/Commander in Chief, U.S. Joint Forces Command

('00-'02); Admiral Charles R. Larson, USN (Ret.),

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command ('91-'94); Vice Admiral

Stephen F. Loftus, USN (Ret.), Deputy Chief of Naval

Operations for Logistics ('90-'94); General John

Michael Loh, USAF (Ret.), Commander, Air Combat Command

('92-'95); Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.),

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ('98-`02); General Dan

McNeill, USA (Ret.), Commander, International Security

Assistance Force in Afghanistan ('07-'08); Lieutenant

General Paul T. Mikolashek, USA (Ret.), The Inspector

General, U.S. Army/Commanding General of the Third U.S.

Army Forces Central Command ('00-'02); Commanding

General, Southern European Task Force ('98-'00);

Admiral Robert J. Natter, USN (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet/Commander, Fleet Forces

Command ('00-'03); General Peter J. Schoomaker, USA

(Ret.), Chief of Staff, U.S. Army ('03-'07); General

Henry H. Shelton, USA (Ret.), Chairman, Joint Chiefs of

Staff ('97-'01); Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., USN

(Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/

Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe ('94-

'96); Admiral William D. Smith, USN (Ret.), U.S.

Military Representative, NATO Military Committee ('91-

'93); General Carl W. Stiner, USA (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command ('90-'93);

Admiral Carlisle A. H. Trost, USN (Ret.), Chief of

Naval Operations ('86-'90); General Charles F. Wald,

USAF (Ret.), Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command

('02-'06); General Charles E. Wilhelm, USMC (Ret.),

Commander, U.S. Southern Command ('97-'00); General

Michael J. Williams, USMC (Ret.), Assistant Commandant,

U.S. Marine Corps ('00-'02).

Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Sergeant Candice Briese on the occasion of her retirement from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and to recognize her contributions to the community for over three decades.

Sergeant Briese is a native of Galt, Missouri, but a lifelong resident of southern California. She has been a committed public servant with a professional career worthy of mention. Her extensive achievements and experience in law enforcement and security established her as a leader in community safety. Sergeant Briese served as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sybil Brand Institute, Lakewood Sheriff's Station, and Employee Support Services. As a Deputy Sheriff, she devoted her time and effort to ensuring safety in prisons, enforcing the law, and helping her department members through counseling and peer support.

Sergeant Briese has been a model public servant who always rises to meet challenges and never allows an obstacle to stop her in her efforts to improve the community. She served as a sergeant in the Men's Central Jail and in the notorious Twin Towers Correctional Facility. She has served with great dedication in various courts in Long Beach, Los Angeles, Inglewood, and Van Nuys.

While Sergeant Briese was serving at the Lakewood Sheriff's Station, she received a commendation from Sheriff Sherman Block for her heroic actions that saved the lives of five infants. She is known not only for her professionalism on the job, but also for her generous and compassionate nature. She was the leading force behind efforts to teach inmates how to read in the Biscailuz Recovery Center.

In addition to being a hardworking law enforcement officer, Sergeant Briese is also a wife and the mother of three successful children. I know that her husband, Glenn Jorritsma, and her children, Beu Alan Briese, Cara Bethanie Briese, and Ted Dustin Briese, are proud of her service.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Sergeant Candice Briese, for her distinguished service and outstanding commitment to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say I have quite enjoyed working with the gentleman from Ohio on this issue and a number of the issues we have had dealings with since I have become chairman, and I fundamentally agree with him and other supporters of the resolution that it is right for the House to have an open, honest debate on the merits of our ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, and outside, outside, the context of a defense spending bill or a supplemental appropriations bill. This is a good thing to be doing.

By vesting the power to declare war with the Congress, the Founders intended the United States would go to war only when absolutely necessary, and it is incumbent on this body to consider as thoroughly as possible the purpose and ongoing necessity of committing U.S. forces to battle.

Now, as a procedural matter, I take issue with the invocation of section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution as the basis for this debate, because that section authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one before us today, to require the withdrawal of combat forces when Congress has not authorized the use of military force.

There really can't be any doubt that Congress authorized U.S. military action in Afghanistan. The authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress in late September 2001 explicitly empowers the President to use force against the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those who harbored them. President Obama is doing just that.

But putting aside procedure, the notion that at this particular moment we would demand a complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal, without regard to the situation on the ground, including efforts to promote economic development, expand the rule of law, and without any measurement of whether the ``hold'' strategy now being implemented is indeed working, I don't think is the responsible thing to do.

Our troops are fighting a complex nexus of terrorist organizations-- al Qaeda, the Taliban--all of which threaten the stability of the Afghan Government, and they have demonstrated their ability to strike our homeland. If we withdraw from Afghanistan before the government there is capable of providing a basic level of security for its own people, we face the prospect that the Taliban once again will take the reins of power in Kabul and provide safe haven to al Qaeda. That would be a national security disaster.

I am keenly aware that even if we remain in Afghanistan, and here I want to emphasize this, there is no guarantee we will prevail in this fight. But if we don't try, we are guaranteed to fail.

President Obama has taken a very deliberative approach. He has examined numerous options over the course of several months and consulted with all relevant military leaders and allies. He really left no stone unturned and no issue unvetted as part of this review. He deserves an opportunity now to implement his strategy. He has given us the timeline for when he expects to see results, and there will be a reassessment of our strategy in 18 months.

General McChrystal, the commander of the U.S. and international forces, indicated that we have made progress since the new strategy was announced on December 1. We are witnessing the first major joint NATO- Afghanistan military operation in the city of Marja, considered a strategic fulcrum for ridding the region of the Taliban.

Our troops are working side by side with their Afghan counterparts. They retook Marja in 3 weeks of hard but well-executed efforts. They are making the Afghan people their number one priority, which is the basis for this counterinsurgency strategy. And to that end, the State Department and USAID have been working very hard to develop a concrete governance and development strategy.

I was here during the frenzied debate following 9/11 when Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the horrors of that day and those who chose to provide the perpetrators a safe haven.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

And I was here for the vote a year later to authorize military force against Iraq. Please don't conflate the two. The fight in Afghanistan is the fight against those who attacked us.

I am not endorsing an open-ended commitment. I am not advocating that we remain without assessing our progress. But I do believe this strategy of our President deserves support, and I urge opposition to the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of our committee, my friend from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from California, I just want to take 15 seconds to make a point with respect to the gentleman from Ohio that, while the authorization for the use of force in 2001 certainly referenced the War Powers Act, our point is that, while this debate makes sense and is appropriate, it is truly not pursuant to the War Powers Act because the War Powers Act says the direction to withdraw comes when there has not been an authorization for the use of military force, and here there was an authorization for the use of military force. I am for the debate; I am against the basis on which the debate is being held.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, to the Chair of the organization of NATO parliamentarians, known as the North Atlantic Assembly, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to deal with the comments of my friend, the previous speaker.

I would suggest that the decision to schedule this debate did not come out of a desire to make a gesture to the extreme left or any such particular move. It was rather some sense of fealty to the institution of Congress, the institution vested with the war-declaring authority, the oversight of how our expenditures are spent. And I don't understand why you and I, who both have feelings about the wisdom of pursuing the current strategy of this administration on this issue, should be afraid of that debate or wanting to attribute motivations to the willingness to have that debate other than the congressional responsibility to have such discussions and have such debate.

I would be happy to yield.

To reclaim my time, this is not a discussion of post offices. This is not a discussion of suspension legislation, and both parties seem to like naming post offices and introducing other kinds of resolutions. This is a discussion about the decision to send our forces into harm's way. It's worthy of a serious debate. There is nothing wrong with that debate. I don't believe our troops are going to get demoralized by our having that debate. I believe for the country, they are going to say, We are proud to represent a country that is willing to undertake that debate.

Madam Speaker, first I would like to yield at the end of the ranking member's time an additional 5 minutes from our time on the assumption that 2 of those 5 minutes will be given to someone from California.

Second, I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), one of only two Members of this body who actually have been deployed in our uniformed services in Afghanistan.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, initially, I yield an additional 2 minutes of my time to that of the ranking member. It is to be added onto her time and is to be subtracted from our time.

Now I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment Subcommittee, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Eni Faleomavaega.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, because I have no further requests for time and I understand that the sponsor of this resolution has both the right and the intention of closing, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to the pioneering work of Daniel Hays Lowenstein, who is retiring from UCLA School of Law to begin service as the founding director for UCLA's Center for the Study of Liberal Arts and Free Institutions.

The field of election law has grown exponentially in recent decades, thanks in no small part to the pioneering work of Dan Lowenstein, who has been a professor of law at UCLA since 1979, teaching a variety of courses focusing on election law and legislation.

His textbook, Election Law, published in 1995, was the first major text on American election law since 1877. Since then, there has been an explosion of interest in the subject and Dan has written seminal work on virtually every important issue in election law including: initiatives and direct democracy; partisan and racial gerrymandering; political party associational rights and issues related to party primaries and caucuses; campaign finance and political bribery; election administration; and the role of competitiveness in election law jurisprudence, not to mention literary criticism of works including The Merchant of Venice. Since 2002, Dan has served as co-editor of the only peer-reviewed scholarly journal devoted to election law issues, the Election Law Journal.

He has, on several occasions, represented members of the House of Representatives in litigation and has counseled them for several decades on strategies regarding redistricting and other political issues.

Lowenstein began his career as a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance, where he spent two and a half years. He served as Chief Deputy for California's Secretary of State, Jerry Brown, where he specialized in election law, and was the main drafter of the Political Reform Act, which was adopted as a statewide initiative (Proposition 9) by an overwhelming majority of California voters in 1974. The law requires detailed disclosure of the role of money in California politics. It created a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Jerry Brown, then Governor, appointed Dan as the first chairman of the Commission. In that position he earned a reputation for fair play and nonpartisanship.

Dan has served on the national governing board of Common Cause and has been a board member and a vice president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the award-winning theatre troupe Interact and twice yearly brings the company to the School of Law to perform plays with legal themes, such as Sophocles' Antigone, Ibsen's Rosmerholm, and Wouk's The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.

He graduated from Yale University in 1964 and Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School in 1967. He is married to Sharon Yagi Lowenstein, who is originally from Watsonville, California. They have two sons, Aaron Lowenstein and Nathan Lowenstein, who are both attorneys working in Los Angeles.

Dan's work, careful, yet provocative, has been cited and debated in Supreme Court opinions and in law review and political science articles too numerous to count. His decision to take emeritus status at the law school and take up a new position as director of UCLA's new Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI) represents a new turn in his career. Developments in America's great universities over the past several decades, while introducing important and often much-needed innovations, have also sometimes shouldered aside the study of the great achievements of western civilization and of the foundations of the free institutions on which our nation rests. From Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence, from William Shakespeare to William Faulkner, from the Gothic cathedrals to the monuments that adorn our nation's capitol, we are all blessed by a heritage that guides us as we seek what is good, what is true, and what is beautiful. CLAFI and comparable efforts starting up at other great American universities will help assure that we pass our heritage down to future generations. Lowenstein's leadership in this movement reflects his own introduction to great works as an undergraduate in the Directed Studies program at Yale, followed by a lifetime of immersion in the study of free institutions, great ideas and great artistic achievements.

Daniel Hays Lowenstein has set an example for scholarly excellence, community service, and intellectual integrity. He is a true Renaissance Man. I am proud to call him a friend.

Madam Speaker, today we honor the accomplishments of Kerry Dumbaugh, a Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Ms. Dumbaugh recently retired after 26 years at CRS and a total of 30 years in the legislative branch. Congress has benefitted immeasurably from her expertise, analysis, insights and timely responses. She has helped legions of legislators understand the profound changes that have taken place in China and in United States-Chinese relations.

Ms. Dumbaugh joined CRS in 1984 at a time when China's political and economic systems were deeply opaque and the economic experiments that would transform the country were in their early years. Her comprehensive research and writing on developments in Chinese politics, economics, human rights and a range of other issues informed Members of Congress and their staff about the dizzying changes that have continuously transformed the region through the years. During her time at CRS, Ms. Dumbaugh also served as head of the Asia and Latin America sections, helping shape the work of other analysts covering those disparate regions.

Ms. Dumbaugh has been a frequent university lecturer and an active participant in academic and policy discussions on China and the Asia- Pacific. She has received numerous awards in recognition of her work at CRS. I want to take a moment to thank Ms. Dumbaugh for her indispensable contributions to the United States Congress, and to let her know that we wish her well in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today we honor the accomplishments of Larry Niksch, a Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Niksch is retiring after 46 years of Federal service, including 43 years at CRS. The United States Congress has benefitted immensely from his expertise, analysis, insights and timely responses, which have covered a wide array of issues concerning the world's most populous and fastest growing region, from India to Japan and nearly all nations in between.

Mr. Niksch has served during 23 Congresses, and has written extensively on issues ranging from the War in Vietnam, the democratic changes that transformed Asia in the 1980s, years of nuclear diplomacy with North Korea and countless other issues. He has helped inform Members of Congress and their staff as they considered the challenges and opportunities facing the United States in the region. He also served as head of the Asia and Latin America section at CRS, helping shape the work of numerous analysts covering those disparate regions.

Mr. Niksch has been a frequent and active participant in policy discussions surrounding North Korea and East Asian security, and has received many awards recognizing his comprehensive work at CRS. I take this moment to thank Mr. Niksch for his countless contributions to the United States Congress, and to let him know that Congress wishes him well in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friend Bobby D. Arias on the occasion of his 60th Birthday. Bobby is being honored by his many colleagues, family and friends for his dedicated career as President of the Communities in Schools of Greater Los Angeles/San Fernando Valley.

As a lifelong resident of Southern California, Bobby began his career as an Executive Director of USC's Learning Center and the Director of Athletics at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in Los Angeles. While at LMU, Bobby was instrumental in bringing the 1984 Olympic Weightlifting Competition to that institution, in addition to negotiating contracts for the Lakers/Clippers and the NBA Summer Pro-League to practice at LMU facilities.

I know first hand of Bobby's commitment to our community. Since 2004 Bobby has volunteered to be the Master of Ceremonies at the annual San Fernando Valley Veterans Day Parade. Additionally, Bobby has committed himself to improving the minds, spirits, and bodies of children throughout Southern California as the Southwest Regional Director for our nation's largest Drop out Prevention Program, Communities In Schools, Inc. He developed public and private partnerships between the community and its schools, brokering in-need resources to at-risk youth and their families. In 1996, he also served as the Chairman for the Executive Committee for Arnold Schwarzenegger's inner City Games, an Olympic style sporting/academic event for 100,000 at-risk youth throughout the Los Angeles County.

As a result of his professional achievements, Bobby has received numerous awards including the prestigious ``Man of the Year'' award for youth empowerment from MCI and Hispanic Magazine, and the ``California All Star Dad's'' Award by the California Department of Social Services.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in wishing Bobby Arias a happy birthday and best wishes for continued success.

Madam Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to our friend, Rabbi Joel E. Rembaum, on the occasion of his 25 years of service to Temple Beth Am and the Pressman Academy.

Rabbi Rembaum's lifelong dedication to the Jewish community started at an early age when he was a camper at Camp Ramah. Soon after he graduated from UCLA with his masters, he left for New York where he earned his ordination as a Rabbi from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Rabbi Rembaum returned to Los Angeles where he earned a Ph.D. in history at UCLA.

He also holds the degrees of Master of Hebrew Literature and Doctor of Divinity, Honoris Causa, from the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Rabbi Rembaum was part of the well renowned faculty and administration of the American Jewish University from 1970 to 1985, pursuing his steadfast vocational climb to the positions of Dean of Undergraduate Studies and eventually becoming an associate professor of Jewish history. He was a visiting assistant professor at UCLA and UC Irvine. He then taught at the Wexner Heritage Foundation and served on the faculty of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies. He has received countless graduate and research fellowships and contributed to the Melton Research Institute Seminar in Jewish History. He was also a member of the board of directors of the Association for Jewish Studies. Rabbi Rembaum has published an impressive variety of articles in the field of Jewish history and has lectured extensively throughout the United States.

Since July 1985, Rabbi Joel E. Rembaum has passionately served as Senior Rabbi of Temple Beth Am in Los Angeles, California. As Senior Rabbi, he successfully launched a reform of the synagogue's education system and worked with the congregation's lay and professional leadership to construct the Rabbi Jacob Pressman Academy. I commend Rabbi Rembaum for making the academy a holistic educational system. Nevertheless year after year, Rabbi Rembaum has continued teaching in all facets of Beth Am's educational programming, in which he continues to inspire and touch the lives of students and faculty.

Rabbi Rembaum lives in Los Angeles with his wife, Fredi, herself a respected and prominent Jewish public professional. The Rembaums have four children: Yona, Avi, Nomi, and Joshua. They also have six grandchildren: Itai, Dani and Ella Rembaum and Ilan, Uri and Maayan Eshkenazi.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, we ask you to join me in saluting Joel E. Rembaum for his impressive career and dedication to the Jewish community, and to congratulate him on his service to Temple Beth Am and the Pressman Academy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friends Janice and Benjamin Reznik on the occasion of their Parnas Award honor from the Masorti Foundation for Conservative Judaism in Israel 14th Annual Los Angeles Celebration.

Before becoming the Founding President of Jewish World Watch, Janice Kamenir-Reznik led an active career in the field of law. A graduate of UCLA law school, Janice spent years building a distinguished career in the legal field and then, recognizing her passion for community service work, turned to that avocation. Under her able leadership, Jewish World Watch--founded jointly with Rabbi Harold Schulweis--has become one of the leading advocacy groups in the fight against the genocide in Darfur and other global human rights abuses.

Janice served as the director of the Commission on Soviet Jewry for the Los Angeles Jewish Federation, and during her years in practice was President of California Women Lawyers, the statewide women's bar. She was a founder and president of California Women's Law Center, a public interest organization advocating for the rights of women and girls. She has testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

In addition to the numerous legal positions held by Janice over the years, she also served in many Jewish community leadership roles. I commend her for her invaluable contributions in serving on the following boards: Los Angeles Hebrew High School, Valley Beth Shalom, Los Angeles Hillel Council, UCLA Hillel, and the Jewish Federation Council.

Ben Reznik boasts a stellar professional and philanthropic record. Widely respected for his tenacious legal acumen, Ben has been described as ``the most litigious attorney in Los Angeles'' by his peers. He has been a key leader and activist in the community, devoting himself to a wide variety of organizations and causes. Currently, he is chairman of the Government, Land Use, Environment and Energy Department at the law firm of Jeffer Magels Butler & Marmaro LLP, JMBM, and leads 25 lawyers who comprise that department. Ben has also argued before the Supreme Court and has represented many prominent companies including the Mitsubishi Corporation and The Clarett Group.

Ben and Janice have three children, Yoni, Devi and Sami. They live in Encino where, through years of community activism and professional success, they have helped numerous people and are shining examples of what the Jewish tradition calls tikkun olam.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in congratulating Janice and Ben Reznik for their impressive career and dedication to the community and to congratulate them on receiving this honor.

Madam Speaker, on December 31, 2009, the House of Representatives will lose one of its most senior and valuable staff members--Mr. James B. Farr. Jim will be retiring after 38 years of service in the House of Representatives, during which time he served on the Committee on the Judiciary and, most recently, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he is the Financial Clerk.

Thirty nine years ago, as a young man from southern Maryland, Jim decided to leave the tobacco farm founded by his grandfather and seek a job on Capitol Hill. This was quite an adventure for a country boy who had grown up tilling the land. Proudly, the farm is still in the family, but no longer grows tobacco.

Following his graduation from Prince George's Community College with a degree in personnel and business management, Jim headed for Washington, D.C., where he landed on the doorstep of Congressman Emanuel Celler from Brooklyn and Queens, New York, the longtime former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Jim was hired by Mrs. Dick, the Staff Director of the Committee, and began working as a clerk in the publications office where he sorted mail, answered the phones, referred bills and assisted in hearing preparation. It was shortly after his arrival on the Hill that he met his future wife, Christine Lynn Wills, who had moved to the Washington, D.C., area from West Virginia. Christine Lynn and Jim have been married for 31 years and have two lovely daughters--Michelle and Jennifer.

Jim's career on the Hill also progressed. In February 1973, he became the Judiciary Committee's publications clerk, where he was responsible for maintaining the Committee's documents. Three years later, Jim was promoted to be the Committee's financial clerk where, under the guidance of the Committee Chairman, he prepared, maintained and oversaw the Committee's budget. Jim was so talented, and his services so highly prized, that he was retained by Chairmen Peter Rodino, Jack Brooks and Henry Hyde. In 2001, when the late Rep. Hyde became Chairman of what was then known as the House International Relations Committee, he asked Jim to move with him and serve as financial clerk for that Committee. There, Jim once again became an indispensable figure, helping to ensure the smooth functioning of the Committee and easing the transition to the late Chairman Tom Lantos and, subsequently, to me.

Mr. Farr has served the Congress under both Democratic and Republican leadership with great distinction and integrity. His service epitomizes the finest qualities of government service. We are all grateful for that service and for the example he has provided to generations of new committee staff whom he has mentored. He will now retire and spend more time with his family and more time on the farm, where third and fourth generations of the Farr family now reside. Thankfully, despite his years of dedicated and impressive service, Jim wears his years easily, and we wish him much good will as he pursues his favorite hobbies of boating, fishing, and hunting.

Good luck and thank you Jim from a grateful House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3714) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to include in the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices information about freedom of the press in foreign countries, establish a grant program to promote freedom of the press worldwide, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

H.R. 3714 reinforces and broadens our country's commitment to media freedom around the world. Dedicated to the memory of a prominent U.S. journalist who lost his life in the pursuit of truth, the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act will ensure that our embassies and consulates overseas bring word to Washington in a timely and regular fashion about those parts of the world where journalists face obstacles, harassment and physical harm merely for doing their job.

I want to particularly congratulate my colleague and recognize him, Adam Schiff of California, for authoring this legislation which will enshrine in law the practice of including information about media freedom in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices written by the Department of State.

With passage of this legislation, our embassies and consulates will be required to report every year on the status of press freedom in each country, both the good and the bad. Where media freedom is threatened in a country, our diplomats will report on what steps that government has taken to preserve journalists' safety and independence and to ensure the prosecution of those who commit violence against journalists.

Mr. Speaker, the dangers faced by the media worldwide continue to mount. On World Press Freedom Day this past May, Freedom House reported a seventh straight year of decline in global media freedom, with twice as many losses as gains and with deterioration occurring in every region of the world. Of the 195 countries and territories that Freedom House monitors, 36 percent have a free press while 31 percent are rated partly free and 33 percent not free at all. As the organization noted, ``The press is democracy's first defense, and its vulnerability has enormous implications for democracy if journalists are not able to carry out their traditional watchdog role.''

Daniel Pearl was one such watchdog. A long-standing correspondent for The Wall Street Journal and its South Asia bureau chief, he was investigating possible terrorism links in Pakistan in early 2002 when he was kidnapped, held hostage, tortured, and killed. His murder was videotaped and released on the Internet.

Although the circumstances of this horrific crime were meant to send a chilling message to the U.S. government and the world's media, it served instead to strengthen our resolve.

A number of initiatives have been established in his name to promote intercultural understanding and freedom of the press. We should let the legislation before us today, Mr. Schiff's bill, become part of this legacy in the interests of ensuring that those who would seek to extinguish the light of truth around the world will instead be dragged out of the shadows and defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my friend, colleague, and neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to split the time evenly, the 20 minutes, in support of the bill with my colleague, the ranking member from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time of the debate on H.R. 2194 by an additional 20 minutes, with my control of 10 of those additional 20 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio's control in opposition of 10 of those 20 minutes.

Perhaps, more accurately, you want to make sure the time is divided, and I am prepared to say the rules require that; and the extension of time I have in mind of an additional 20 minutes--

Mr. Speaker, I have a further unanimous consent request: that the 10 additional minutes of time on behalf of the supporters of this legislation be split, 5 minutes for the majority and 5 minutes for the ranking member.

Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it correct we are now in a situation where we will have a 1-hour debate on this bill in which I will have 15 minutes to yield, the ranking member will have 15 minutes to yield, and the gentleman from Ohio will have 30 minutes under his control?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has one overriding goal: to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is the most serious and urgent strategic challenge faced by the United States, and we must use all of the diplomatic means at our disposal--including tougher sanctions--to prevent that from becoming a reality.

A nuclear-armed Iran would spread its influence by intimidating its neighbors; it would, with near impunity, continue to support terrorists and destabilize the Middle East; it would spark an arms race in the region that would tear the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to shreds; and, most frightening of all, it could, in the light of Iran's repeated threats to wipe another nation off the map, result in the actual use of nuclear weapons.

When one considers the regime's ideological nature, the fact that it sent thousands of children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, and its current disregard for the human rights of its own citizens, it is clear the Iranian regime is anything but a rational actor, and we certainly cannot take the chance that a nuclear Iran would behave responsibly.

With each passing day, the situation becomes more urgent as Iran takes additional steps to develop its nuclear weapons capability. By many estimates, it would have that capability by sometime next year, and even the predictions that they could not be ready to deliver a bomb within 5 years have to be reevaluated on a shorter time frame based on recent revelations about Iran's nuclear program.

In September, Iran's efforts to construct a new secret uranium enrichment facility were exposed to the world. And what was Tehran's response when the international community rightly condemned it for that action? To declare that it will build 10 more.

The Iranian nuclear issue could have been resolved without further sanctions. President Obama has offered Iran an outstretched hand, but regrettably Iran has not unclenched its fist. The regime has refused to endorse even a confidence-building measure--agreed to by its negotiators in Geneva--that would have seen Iran ship most of its low- enriched uranium abroad to be further enriched for use in Iran's civilian nuclear medical research reactor. That deal would have bought everyone significant time, delaying Iran's nuclear-arms clock for up to a year as negotiators dealt with the heart of the issue: Iranian compliance with the U.N. Security Council requirement that it suspend its enrichment program altogether. By rejecting the deal, Iran retains its full stock of low-enriched uranium, enough to serve as the basis for one nuclear bomb, and it forces the world to respond urgently.

The bill before us today is an important part of that response. It would take advantage of Iran's considerable dependency on refined- petroleum imports. It would sanction foreign companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran, or help Iran with its own domestic refining capacity, by depriving those companies of access to the United States market. And in so doing, we are asking no more of foreign companies than we currently demand of American firms. I believe the passage and implementation of this act would have a powerful effect on the Iranian economy, and I believe it would force unpalatable budgetary choices on the Iranian regime, vastly increasing the domestic political cost of pursuing its nuclear program.

That said, I want to reiterate that my overriding goal in moving forward with this legislation is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. As we move toward a likely conference with the Senate, most likely early next year, and as the administration continues its efforts to pursue stronger multilateral sanctions, I am open to making adjustments to the bill that would make it as effective as possible in meeting that objective, including providing incentives to other nations to join us in supporting a strong multilateral sanctions regime. One possibility would be to provide an exemption for companies whose host nations are already enforcing robust sanctions in their national law.

But for now, it is sufficient to say that Iran has had ample time to respond positively to President Obama's generous engagement offer. Regrettably, the response has been only one of contempt. It is time for this body to act.

I urge the support of this legislation.

December 14, 2009.

Hon. Howard L. Berman,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding the Iran Refined

Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (H.R. 2194, 111th Congress).

As you know, the bill was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means based on the Committee's jurisdiction over

international trade.

There have been some productive conversations between the

staffs of our Committees, during which we have proposed some

changes to H.R. 2194 that I believe help to clarify the

intent and scope of the bill, particularly with respect to

U.S. international trade obligations. I appreciate your

commitment to

address the concerns raised by the Committee on Ways and

Means as this legislation moves forward.

In order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee on Ways and Means will forgo

action on this bill and will not oppose its consideration on

the suspension calendar, based on our understanding that you

will work with the Committee on Ways and Means as the

legislative process moves forward in the House of

Representatives and in the Senate, to ensure that our

concerns are addressed. This is done with the understanding

between our Committees that it does not in any way prejudice

the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to the

appointment of conferees or the full exercise of its

jurisdictional prerogative on this bill or similar

legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

our understanding with respect to H.R. 2194, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, a few unanimous consent requests. I first recognize the Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recognize a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a further unanimous consent request to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

(Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, someone who's has been very focused on this issue, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, could we get a little summary of the time remaining on this complicated issue.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee on our House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 1 minute to one of the great supporters of this legislation, the Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) on behalf of the legislation.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. Engel.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman who first introduced legislation on this subject, who I worked closely with, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Speaker, I now yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a very patient member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield myself the remaining time.

Madam Speaker, I have heard, I guess, three reasons put forth about why people should not support this legislation.

The first is some hint of a belief that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Our report lists activity after activity that Iran has undertaken to hide its activities from the IAEA to build enrichment facilities that have no purpose in the uranium enrichment program and to talk about neutron triggers, which only have one purpose, which is to detonate a nuclear weapon. It is a country that has been offered by Russia, with the support of the P5, a chance for a nuclear energy program, and it has spurned all of those offers to pursue this. To me, there can be no serious doubt about that.

The second argument is that they get a nuclear weapon, and we can contain them. For the reasons I gave in the beginning and because I believe it totally destroys the nonproliferation regime, containment is not the right policy.

The third argument is that these sanctions are going to hurt the Iranian people. Well, I was here in 1986 when we took up a prohibition on any new investment, not investment in the energy sector, but any new investment in the apartheid regime of South Africa.

What was the argument against it? Banning new investment, curtailing economic growth, hurting the majority of the population in South Africa. Don't do it. Don't wreak havoc on the poor people.

We did not listen to that argument. We enacted those new sanctions. Europe soon followed in banning new investment. The South African business community went to the regime in South Africa and pointed out the economic devastation they faced if they continued with their apartheid policies.

It is ludicrous to think that the people who are risking their lives and their liberty and their limbs and who are doing everything they can to express their opposition to this regime in Iran are going to turn into a unifying force behind that regime because the price of oil gets higher. We are working with them to weaken that regime and to stop this nuclear weapons program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.