Floor Statements

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, we all start as a tabula rasa in all areas of life. Then we grow, and we have the opportunity to learn. In my fewer number of years here on Earth than the chairman, I have learned quite a bit about jazz myself.

It has been my honor to have friends who have been involved in jazz in Memphis--particularly, the late Phineas Newborn, Jr., who was a great pianist, one of the great jazz pianists of all time. He was a Memphian, and he was known by jazz musicians all over the world as a great jazz pianist. Others have come from Memphis and have gone to New York, which is oftentimes where jazz is played.

Marvin Stamm, a great flugelhorn player, performed with different orchestras throughout the country as a Memphian. He went to North Texas State University for his education where he got a degree in jazz band, which is one of the few places in the world, Mr. Smith's State, that has jazz band distinction.

In New York, there are Bradley's, Village Vanguard and all of those wonderful places where you historically have been able to hear people like Art Blakey. I was able to see Max Roach in Baltimore once at a jazz festival. I am a fan of Charlie Parker's and of Miles Davis. They are great jazz musicians. I think all musicians respected Miles Davis as one of the greatest influences on their lives regardless of whether they were rockers or whether they were blues musicians or jazz performers.

I thank the chairman for his appreciation of what is a uniquely American cultural achievement, one that the world holds dear and respects America for. The appreciation of jazz is an art form that is being lost to our students. It is one that needs to be taught in our schools and that needs to be maintained as a living and breathing expression of the American art industry.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 905) recognizing the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Louis D. Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution honors Louis D. Brandeis, one of America's greatest jurists and legal minds, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of his retirement from the United States Supreme Court.

In any listing of great Supreme Court justices, Brandeis would have to be among one of the top three. Among his lasting accomplishments, he has greatly influenced constitutional jurisprudence, especially in the areas of labor relations, free speech, right to privacy, and women's suffrage.

Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky, to Jewish parents who had emigrated from Europe, having come from Bohemia after the Bohemian Revolution trying to create Bohemia as an independent state in the 1850s.

After graduating from Harvard Law School at age 20 with the highest grade average in the college's history, he embarked on a legal career in which he devoted so much of his time and energy to important social justice causes--often pro bono--that he became widely known as ``the people's lawyer.'' Indeed, he pioneered the pro bono legal tradition. In a ranking of lawyers in America, he would have to rank among the top 10, independent of his 23-year service on the United States Supreme Court. He was allowed to enter Harvard Law School even though he wasn't a high school graduate, and he graduated prior to the requisite age of 21 and he was given his degree by special resolution.

His significant contributions are so numerous that it would be impossible to discuss them all, but I will mention a few. In 1890, he and his law partner, Samuel Warren, published an article in the Harvard Law Review entitled The Right to Privacy, which is credited with creating the foundation for that right in American constitutional law. Brandeis felt one of the most significant parts of the American experience was people's right to be left alone and that's where the right to privacy came into his thinking as he expressed it in his law work.

He took on the life insurance industry and J.P. Morgan's railroad monopoly. He was a leading advocate for stronger labor protections. He was a strong advocate for States having the opportunity to go into new endeavors and said that the States were the laboratories of democracy; that we had a number of States--today 50, less when he was serving on the Supreme Court--but that each had the opportunity to try some particular new idea and see if it worked so the other States could rely on the work of that State to see whether it should expand and be used throughout the country.

The laboratories of democracy were important as States, such as California, looked at medical marijuana and the other States could then learn, and that spread throughout 12 or 13 other States, but there was an opportunity to learn, rather than doing it all at one time and seeing if one policy fit the whole Nation. He was a chief economic adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, and helped develop the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. In 1916 President Wilson nominated him for the Supreme Court. He became the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, where he continued his work on great legal issues and left a lasting legacy in American jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, in his confirmation hearing, anti-Semitism was one of the issues that came about and was raised in the Senate. But our country overcame that, and he became the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice.

Through this resolution we recognize and celebrate the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court, and remember, with deep gratitude, his many contributions to our Nation's life and to the founding also of the State of Israel.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as many minutes as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) needs. Mr. Yarmuth is the genesis of this particular resolution. He hails from the same city that Justice Brandeis did and brings this to memorialize this man's great talents.

I appreciate Mr. Yarmuth bringing this resolution and his comments. I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Justice Brandeis had a great impact on this country, not only as a jurist, as we've mentioned, but as a lawyer. And one of his innovations was something called the Brandeis Brief, where not only were precedents used to make an argument but social data, factual data about changes in society to support the Court's positions.

Brandeis was not alive at the time of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, one of the great decisions of our Supreme Court, but it was a Brandeis Brief argument that was used to win that case, for there was little law on the subject that was favorable, but there was much social analysis and facts that helped the Court make its decision that separate, in fact, was not equal, and that we needed a change in this country that we had in 1954 that we're continuing to experience today.

Justice Brandeis had many quotes which were of great significance, one of which is inscribed in the walls of Congress, I think just beneath this Chamber on the first floor. If you look up towards the ceiling, The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. That quote, which is inscribed on the walls of Congress, is one that I've long thought about, and people making arguments that sometimes are well meant but they take away from the rights that people should have in this country and freedoms.

Brandeis also said we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we can't have both. And that thought permeates much of what we debate in this Congress today and see as the differences in wealth grow greater and greater.

Indeed, Georgia O'Keeffe, one of my favorite painters, and Warren Zevon, one of my favorite songwriters, singers and friends, would appreciate this resolution today, for the right to be alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man, was something Louis Brandeis espoused, as did O'Keeffe and Zevon. Justice Brandeis said the most political office is that of a private citizen. And I think we should all remember that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4194) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying law school students participating in legal clinics or externships from the application of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 of such title.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4194 would address an unfortunate consequence of current law that hinders participation by law students in pro bono clinics, which limits the provisions of these needed services to the community. It is appropriate that this resolution follow that of Justice Brandeis, who really was the father of pro bono work.

Title 18, section U.S.C. 205 makes it a crime for a Federal Government employee to provide legal assistance to anyone bringing a case adverse to the United States or in bringing a case adverse to a substantial U.S. interest. Section 205(b) applies the same rule to employees of the District of Columbia.

For law school students or legal clinic staff who hold government jobs, this criminalizes participation in a wide range of political programs, including those funded by the Federal Government. Law students or legal clinic staff who are full- or part-time government employees face criminal penalties if they participate in law school pro bono

clinics that represent plaintiffs whose claims are adverse to the Federal or D.C. Governments. Yet this opportunity is important for students to learn their craft and become lawyers.

This disqualifies the law students from participation in many service activities that benefit both the students and the wider community, among them juvenile justice clinics, death penalty appeal projects, advocacy programs on behalf of parents with special needs children, and low-income taxpayer clinics.

This also has the perverse effect of forcing law students to choose between government service and community service. It also needlessly deprives government employees of a range of real-world educational experiences that would be particularly beneficial to them when they become lawyers. Just this year, this Congress passed the Edward Kennedy Service Act encouraging people to participate in public service, and this is another area where we should encourage it.

This is a misguided choice to force on law students, for they should be able to have both government and community service and be encouraged to do so. This bill will stop the law from forcing them to have this conflict.

Section 205 already contains an exemption that narrows the definition of ``conflict of interest'' to those instances of actual conflict: cases in which a government attorney substantially and personally participated as a government employee, and cases in which the employee's department or agency is currently directly participating.

By applying this exemption to law students and legal clinic staff, the bill will eliminate the pernicious effects of section 205 while retaining its safeguards against true conflict of interest. Law students and legal clinic staff would be able to participate in law school clinics that are, by their nature, adverse to the Federal or D.C. Government while continuing to prohibit actual conflicts of interest involving specific parties.

Law students and staff who choose government service would remain subject to governmental conflict of interest rules while also being permitted to enjoy the same clinical resources and opportunities as their peers.

I commend our colleague Congressman Dan Lungren from California for his leadership on this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank Mr. Lungren for bringing this to us. It is important that the law students do have this opportunity and that the conflicts be real and not imagined. I would like to encourage a ``yes'' vote and would move that we pass the bill at this time.

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.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will provide guidance and prevent abuse in the appointment of corporate monitors to implement deferred and nonprosecution agreements.

Last Congress, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law led the charge against the politicization of United States Attorneys' Offices in the last Administration. Additionally, both last year and this year, the Subcommittee held hearings on deferred and nonprosecution agreements in criminal cases against corporate defendants, and the selection of corporate monitors to implement those agreements. Those hearings, as well as recent press articles, revealed the need for guidelines to govern the appointment of corporate monitors in these cases.

The Government's use of deferred and nonprosecution agreements as a prosecutorial tool with respect to corporate defendants has grown exponentially in recent years. Unfortunately, the selection and use of corporate monitors to implement those agreements has been tainted by a disturbing lack of guidance, and even more troubling indications of abuse.

In one case, a former U.S. Attorney--Christopher Christie--selected former Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve as a corporate monitor, for which Mr. Ashcroft collected fees of up to $52 million. The circumstances surrounding his appointment and service as a monitor were not made public at the time of his selection and other than the hearings the

Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee held on the issue--no provision was ever made for oversight or accountability concerning Mr. Ashcroft's selection or performance as a monitor.

To prevent such reckless abuse from taking place in the future, I have introduced legislation that will prohibit United States attorneys and assistant United States attorneys from acting as or working for corporate monitors for specified periods after their service with the Government terminates. This legislation will provide accountability, transparency, and uniformity in the appointment of corporate monitors to implement deferred and nonprosecution agreements.

Public trust and confidence are essential elements of an effective justice system--our laws and their enforcement must not only be fair, but they must also be perceived as fair. The perception of unfairness and favoritism undermines governmental authority in the justice process. My legislation will help restore fairness and rebuild trust in our public process.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer the amendment to the body that is at the desk.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I want to thank Chairman Frank for working with me to include this language in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

This amendment would strip a provision permitting the Securities and Exchange Commission to delegate regulation of investment advisers to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

In its present form, the bill would give FINRA sweeping rule-making authority over investment advisers which has been under the sole domain of the governmental regulatory agencies. This far-reaching provision would extend FINRA's jurisdiction to Federally registered investment advisory firms that manage almost 80 percent of all advisory firms' assets under management.

FINRA does not have the necessary expertise or experience with investment advisers or the Investment Advisers Act to do the job, and the SEC is

best positioned to oversee the investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act.

There is inherent conflict of interest in having a self-regulatory group that funds this agency and has always been on the side of broker dealers. We cannot afford to outsource key regulating functions to self-regulating organizations that act solely in the best interest of their clients.

In a speech earlier this year, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar noted his opposition to establishing a self-regulatory organization for investment advisers because the ``SEC should not outsource its mission'' and because the SEC ``is the only securities regulator with the necessary experience in dealing with a principles-based regime.''

I'm concerned that the high level of investor protection provided under the Advisers Act fiduciary duty would be diminished if FINRA were to obtain the additional authority. We should not expend the authority of FINRA to the investment advisory profession.

Again, I urge the passage of this amendment which would keep the SEC as the proper, independent regulator of investment advisers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman for working with us on the amendment, and I'd like to yield as much time as he needs to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I would just like to thank again the gentleman from Alabama. I know it's difficult for him to work with us on this because he is the champion of the SEC, the Crimson Tide of Alabama.

With that, I would like to urge passage of the amendment.

I yield back the remainder of the time.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the people I have worked with on this amendment, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Frank, Mr. Sarbanes.

The fact is that Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 is one of the more important pieces that we have in our portfolio to protect consumers against corporate fraud and corporate corruption. When it was passed it was passed by an overwhelming majority, almost unanimous, in this House.

Over the years it hasn't been implemented completely, but now it needs to be implemented, for small companies, $75 million or less, as well as the large companies where it has already been implemented. As Mr. Sarbanes said, the loss to investors from small companies is just as important and potent to them as the loss from large companies. We have so many investors that will be at risk if there are not proper accounting procedures and safeguards for the American public.

As Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the SEC said, Overturning the most pro-investor legislation in the past 25 years is deeply disturbing. Those who vote against investor protections in Sarbanes- Oxley will bear the investors' mark of Cain. Take it if you choose it.

I submit you shouldn't support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 939) extending condolences to the families of Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owens, and Officer Greg Richards.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This resolution extends condolences to the families of four Lakewood, Washington, police officers, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owens, and Officer Greg Richards, who were senselessly slain by gunfire in the line of duty on Sunday, November 29, 2009. These brave and honorable Lakewood Police Department officers were ambushed as they sat in a local coffee shop, catching up on paperwork at the beginning of their Sunday morning shift.

By way of this resolution, the House of Representatives honors the lives and mourns the loss of these Lakewood police officers. We join the city of Lakewood and the entire State of Washington in celebrating the lives and grieving the deaths of these police officers.

Sergeant Mark Renninger was described as a ``tough guy'' who excelled at his job and was regarded as a leader and teacher in the close-knit Lakewood police force. He was married with three children.

Officer Tina Griswold liked to cook, ride her dirt bike, and was a certified diver. Her father is a retired police officer. She began working in law enforcement as a dispatcher and came to Lakewood 5 years ago as an officer. She leaves behind a 21-year-old daughter and a 7- year-old son.

Officer Ronald Owens, known to friends and family as Ronnie, was described as having a fun-loving personality and as someone who made everyone around him feel positive. Officer Owens leaves behind a daughter.

Officer Greg Richards enjoyed music in his spare time, playing drums in a rock band. He liked nothing better than spending time with his wife, Kelly, and his three children.

By passing this resolution, we want the families of these police officers to know that they are not alone in mourning the loss of the Lakewood officers. My first job, Mr. Speaker, was as an attorney for the police department. I served 3\1/2\ years as an attorney for the Memphis Police Department, and I relate to the loss that the department and this Nation have suffered.

I urge all my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as the gentleman shall consume to Mr. Smith from the State of Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join with my friend from Texas in urging that we pass this resolution and that we do mourn these brave officers who lost their lives and stand with the people of Lakewood, Washington.

But I would also ask us to think about what happened, why these people lost their lives. And we may never know, but we do know that the person who killed them should have been behind bars. He was a criminal who was released from prison in Arkansas through executive clemency. And while there are certainly people who committed victimless crimes who are unnecessarily kept for long periods of times in incarceration and should have clemency or some type of executive relief, people who commit crimes of violence, as this person did, they should not be released unless there are some extra circumstances that are beyond anybody's thought that it was appropriate.

This gentleman was not reformed. He committed other crimes. He still should have been in jail.

And you've got to think about mental health. The man was a criminal, but he was also mentally ill. He had delusions that he was some type of religious figure. And we've got to think about the mental health laws that we have up here and the opportunity to fund mental health institutions and to get mental health so that people can be treated before they commit some act out of a delusional aspect of their disease.

So there are a lot of other areas we need to look into as we mourn these officers and remember 9/11 and the fire people and the police people who were killed there. And we've got to remember the issues with guns and how this man got access to a gun to commit this crime. So there are other issues that need to be looked at.

I join all the Members of the House and ask that we pass H. Res. 939 and join in morning the loss of these four fine law enforcement officers, but also that we continue our research into the causes of this heinous crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H. Res. 648.

This morning during 1-minutes, 15 Members of the Democratic Caucus honored Rev. Jesse Jackson on the 25th anniversary of his Presidential run. He was the first African American male to run for President, and his contributions to our society cannot be overstated. He has a long career in civil rights work, and his leadership in forming the Rainbow Coalition is well known to all Americans.

It is important to note his place on the world stage, a role in which he has been an effective leader, negotiator, and voice for America around the world. Rev. Jackson's skills have been applied to international relations in Syria, where he freed Navy Lieutenant Robert Goodman in 1983. President Reagan recognized Rev. Jackson's essential contribution by hosting Rev. Jackson and Lieutenant Goodman at the White House. In 1984, Rev. Jackson negotiated the release of 22 Americans held in Cuba.

Although Rev. Jackson declined an opportunity to become Ambassador to South Africa because he wanted to help his son Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., seek election--which he did, as he was elected to this body in 1996--President Clinton had requested he be named Ambassador. He, instead, named him a special envoy for democracy in 1997. Subsequently, Jesse Jackson met with Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi to promote free and fair elections in Kenya. In 1999, he was in Kosovo and negotiated the release of three POWs.

Jesse Jackson's career on the international stage has been spectacular, and his place in history is assured. His passion, his dedication, and his continuing influence for change are hallmarks of his life. We need look no further than today's tribute to him when a group of House pages, a Rainbow Coalition themselves, excitedly sought to have their picture taken with the Reverend Jackson and did, after he finished his appearance here in the gallery and listening to the 1- minutes this morning.

I join my fellow House Members in recognizing this 25th anniversary of the Presidential run of Rev. Jesse Jackson and appreciate what he's done for our Nation.

Madam Speaker, for almost two decades, the Republics of Turkey and Armenia have been meeting to discuss a pathway for normalization of relations. These diplomatic discussions were not easy and often involved complicated multi-dimensional implications. However, on October 10th, the two neighbors signed a historic rapprochement, a ceremony which was followed around the globe.

In the two protocols signed, the two nations agreed to establish diplomatic relations, normalize their bilateral relations in all aspects, open their border and create a framework to determine their joint history. This agreement would not only bring stability to the region, it will also provide an example for other nations to come together to resolve their past disputes.

At their signing ceremony, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers were joined by foreign dignitaries from the United States, France, Switzerland, Russia, the European Union, and the Council of Europe. While each country's parliament must now ratify these protocols, we should acknowledge the significant progress for these two neighbors.

The U.S. administrations of the past, as well as the current Obama administration, all support the diplomatic discussions between Turkey and Armenia. I want to commend both countries as they move this historic agreement through their respective parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, today is indeed an historic day. As the plaque over the Speaker's rostrum says, In our time and our generation, we should do something worthy to be remembered. Those were Daniel Webster's words, a man who served in this House.

We can fulfill the destiny of other people who have served with us in the Federal Government, from Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman to Hubert Humphrey and to the recently late Senator Ted Kennedy. This is an important date for America when we bring us into the 21st century. We should have been here 50 or 60 years ago.

It is wrong that our country has an infant mortality rate equal to third-world nations. This bill will set out a newborn program that will try to rectify that. It will see that private practice doctors go into the inner cities, with general practitioners having an incentive to go there. With community health centers in the inner cities and wellness and prevention programs not having a deductible, it will bring America into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Member of the United States Congress, and never prouder than this weekend.

Mr. Speaker, this debate in the House is part of a 97- year-old debate in America. It started with a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, and continued with Democrats Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, then a Republican, Richard Nixon, who, while short on veracity, was great on policy and government. It continued through Bill Clinton, and now we are in a day when we have a chance to accomplish something worthwhile, something Daniel Webster tells us we should do while we are here in our generation and our time, to do something worthy of being remembered.

Theodore Roosevelt said, In this world the only thing supremely worth having is the opportunity, coupled with the capacity, to do well and worthily a piece of work, the doing of which is of vital consequence to the welfare of mankind.

I plan to take my voting card, along with hopefully at least 218 others, and do something that Teddy Roosevelt would see as proper, and provide health care for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I had planned on doing a 1-minute on the Berlin Wall. I think the 20th anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall is a historic occasion. It is a story about freedom and oppression and people having the opportunity to have that freedom.

I had the opportunity to visit Berlin before the wall came down and after the wall came down.

The contrast in East Berlin and West Berlin, when the wall was up, was about as stark as the debate is from this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle. There was the idea of light and frivolity and freedom and action and caring--and just life on one side, and the other side of the wall was dark, negative, gray and repressive.

When I traveled over there, it was just startling for me to experience it. Kurfurstendamm, which is the main street in West Berlin, was a street of people and musicians and buskers on the street and wonderful food and all kinds of life and freedom, and the other side was dark. As soon as the people went home in these communist-style, Stalinesque architecture buildings, they went home, they were not out, there was no nightlife.

The waitress that waited on us in an East German, East Berlin restaurant was almost afraid to talk to us. She yearned to visit the West and to visit around the world, didn't know if she would ever have that opportunity. We

tipped her handsomely, and I hope she used that money at some time to make her trip across to the free world.

When we went through Checkpoint Charlie, I gave the guard there--and it was one of the most ominous moments that I've experienced seeing a combination of a police person, a border patrol person, a German--and I say that in all the best respect to Germans, just a characterization thereof, the same for police and border guards--and a communist checking you through Checkpoint Charlie. It was rather stern and official-like and intimidating. I slipped him an Elvis Presley swizzle stick, which he kind of looked askance and took his hand and got it into his hand and stuck it in his pocket and never moved his eyes from looking forward. I was happy to pass Elvis along.

While I agree with the gentleman who spoke earlier about President Reagan and some of the things he did in spending to help defeat the Soviet Union and bring down that wall, a lot of what brought down that wall was the people and their yearning for freedom, which was expressed through Radio Free Europe and other manners in which the German youth heard American music and saw American life. They saw blue jeans and they heard rock and roll, they heard Elvis, they heard the Beatles, they heard all kinds of people. Eventually that wall came down and they heard Pink Floyd; Pink Floyd played and the world listened and the wall came down.

When I returned years later to Berlin, I drove through the Brandenburg Gate, which I don't think I was supposed to, but I did. And that was fun, I could do it, it was freedom.

I thought back upon the last time I had been in East Berlin and you couldn't do anything; it was such an ominous state. East Berlin now is a fun, thriving, great place with great restaurants and art scenes and freedom and people. It has really become more happening than the KuDam or Kreuzberg or the other areas in the West which are happening as well. But it was a great day when that wall came down.

The Newseum has three or four portions of the wall here in Washington. I went there last week. I would encourage everybody, Mr. Speaker, to go to the Newseum, which is a great museum. It's a museum about history in America and the world, not just the news media, but about freedom. The reason they've got the Berlin Wall there is because of that freedom in the First Amendment, the freedom of press, the freedom of expression, and the freedom of association. You can learn about that and value it.

You look at that wall and you see pictures of the people who died trying to get across, and coming up with ways to tunnel their way under the wall or to leap or to create some type of flying machines, and all the different ways, being inside cars or under cars and taken to freedom. Many died, some made it. It's a great tribute to people's yearnings for freedom and their desires to overcome the barriers put before them by repressive regimes.

So I wanted to speak today because that was a momentous occasion in my life to see the Berlin Wall, to go into East Berlin and see the difference between our type of government and the Soviet repression, and then to go back later and see the joy that is now in East Berlin and the freedom that has been allowed to flourish.

So I thank the gentleman for bringing the resolution, I thank the lady for bringing the resolution, and I encourage everybody to go to the Newseum and to cherish their freedom.

Madam Speaker, this weekend this House will be the scene of a debate on the most important bill that has faced this Congress and this country since 1965, and that is health care, putting out country on a path where it should have been in the 20th century but catching up. The AARP has recently endorsed the bill because they know that it helps senior citizens. It will guarantee that the rates don't go up and the doughnut hole will be closed.

My local alternative paper, the Memphis Flyer, had a feature story, Young People and Health Insurance. Most young people don't have health insurance. They think they're invincible, they don't necessarily have jobs, and they can't stay on their parents' policy. When this bill passes, Madam Speaker, young people will be able to stay on their parents' health insurance policies until they're 27, filling a great void. Most parents don't like the idea of their children not having health insurance.

This will help the young and the old. It will help all of America. It is, indeed, America's bill. I will proudly vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 14th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

Yitzhak Rabin was the Prime Minister of Israel on November 4, 1995, when he was assassinated. He was one of the great men of the world, and like November 22 in our country, that is a date that we should all remember.

Yitzhak Rabin served two terms as prime minister, from 1974 to 1977 and 1992 to 1995. He also served as Defense Minister in Israel during the Six-Day War, and was responsible for the raid in Entebbe. He was a great Israeli leader who was killed because he reached out to bring about peace with the PLO. He was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

During his time as Prime Minister in the seventies, he brought about peace with Egypt, and in the nineties with Jordan and with the PLO and with Yasser Arafat.

We had a debate on this floor yesterday about a resolution. I don't think we would have been having that debate if the assassin's bullet had not struck Yitzhak Rabin. I think we would have peace in the Middle East. It takes strong men like him, sometimes men of war, to bring about peace and reach across the aisle to their adversaries.