. ms. moore: i would ask you to not defund planned parenthood. and i mean that as a double ditandra. i know of what the previous speaker referred, to all those well-meaning people who want to speak about the value of life and not to funding contraception and not wanting to make an abortion which is the law of the land available if people would choose that. i am really touched by the passion of the opposite to want to save black babies. i can tell you i know a lot about having black babies. i've had three of them. and i had my first one when i was 18 years old. at the ripe old age of 18. the chair: members take their conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman may resume. ms. moore: i thank for you that courtesy, madam chair. i had my first baby at the ripe old age of 18, an unplanned pregnancy. and let me tell you, i went into labor, unfortunately, on new year's eve, had not even one dime, phone calls cost a dime at that time. i didn't have a phone in my home. i didn't have a dime to go to the phone booth to call an ambulance, an ambulance which is a waste of money using medicaid dollars, but i didn't have a car and didn't have cab fare. i just want to tell you a little bit about what it's like to not have planned parenthood. you have to add water to the formula to make it stretch, you have to give your kids ramen noodles at the enof -- end of the month to fill up their little bellies so they don't cry. you have to give them main ace -- mayon ace sandwiches -- mayonnaise sandwiches. one of the biggest problems school districts have in educating some of these poor, black children who are unplanned is that they're mobile, they're constantly moving because they can't pay the rent. and yes, i heard many of you talk about sexual predators, it subjects them to sexual predators, as when you try to go out and do a little work. you have to leave your kids with just anybody because you don't have $800 to $1,200 a month for childcare. and let me tell you, you know, the public policy p has treated poor children and women who have not had the benefit of planned parenthood with utter contempt. these same children, it's been very difficult to help get them health insurance through chips. when you go to the grocery store to buy you birthday cake with your food stamps, everyone stared at you in contempt. and yes, on a bipartisan basis, democrats and republicans ended the entitlement for aid to families with dependent children so like when we have a recession like we have now, women who are alone typically, poor, of color with these poor black children have no money, go months and months and months with little or nothing to sustain themselves. and you know, you know, i recall that the first item on the you-cut website was to cut temporary assistance to needy families. and let me tell you what it does to women who cannot plan their parenthood, it derails their ability to complete education and training so that they can get a job. the tanis law is harsh and won't let women complete high school diplomas and sends them into workfare programs and low-wage industries, often jobs with no unemployment benefits. and of course they're treated with contempt and disdain when they apply for any aid. they're humiliated. and so i would beg my colleagues, i would beg them to not defund planned parenthood. planned parenthood is healthy for women, it's healthy for children, and it's healthy for our society. and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. planned parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the united states receives millions of dollars in government aid, yet they are still classified as a nonprofit organization. from 2008 to 2009, planned parenthood received $363 million. ms. black: which is 1/3 of their billion dollar income from grants and contracts from federal and state governments. and during that time, the number of abortions that they performed increased to a record number of 324,000. that's almost 25,000 from 2006-2007. and each fiscal year since 2000, the government has increased its funding an average of $22 million per year while the number of abortions they performed steadily increased. this occurred while the overall abortion rate in the united states declined. and despite all of this, we continue to give this organization money, millions, despite reports planned parenthood clinics have failed to comply with state statutory rape reporting laws, often ignoring parental consent laws, and most recently, a few have refused to report instances of sex trafficking of meanors. -- of minors. simple fact, funding planned parenthood and its affiliates does not decrease abortion, it increases it. when i think of planned parenthood, i'm immediately reminded of a night 20 years ago when i was working in the emergency room at hendersonville hospital. a 22-year-old girl presented after receiving an incomplete abortion from a planned parenthood clinic. she had no follow-up number and she didn't know where to go to receive the care that she needed. unfortunately, she waited at home bleeding for hours before coming to the emergency room, but it was too late. and due to the excessive bleeding loss in her body, responded by an uncontrollable clotting condition known as c.i.c., and at this point, there was nothing we could do. we watched in crung girl die. -- we watched this young girl die. that young girl with her whole life ahead of her died that night. stories like these are the everyday tragedies that go untold. that is why i stand here this hour to show my support for this amendment and for all of the continuing efforts to defund planned parenthood. i thank the gentleman from indiana for introducing this vital amendment. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> mr. speaker, to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this has been an interesting debate as we look at the 150 years back in history and look at the civil war and some people reacting it like it was a good event and kind of look at it like we're treating history here tonight. mr. cohen: it was 1965 when griswold v connecticut said it was planned parenthood could not be prohibited by the government from giving contraceptive advice to married people and we've come a long way since then in terms of liberties. i'm kind of surprised as we get here in 2011, and we look at this house and part of this house which claims to be so concerned about liberties and individual freedoms and individual rights is more hung up on the 10th amendment and something to do with states and federals rather than ninth amendment and the right that gives women and individuals the right to make certain decisions. and we've got a group over here that's really concerned about earmarks, and yet what this is, i would submit it's not a bill of attainder, it's a reverse earmark, because you're saying who we can't give money to. and the logic that i've heard from my friend from georgia was that because even though we have the hyde amendment which says planned parenthood can't use federal funds for abortion because they use -- they do other planned parenthood activities, helping with h.i.v. aids screening, helping with cervical and breast cancer exams and treatments and other birth control type activities because of abortion, because they do abortion, too, it helps contribute in the milieu of their overall fundings. with that logic we wouldn't fund any hospital, any health clinic or any doctor that any part of their practice or operation has anything to do with abortion because the funds get commingled. and it helps contribute to their ability to provide abortion. so the bottom line is this isn't about planned parenthood. it's not the reverse earmarks that picks out only planned parenthood, including planned parenthood of memphis, tennessee, that provides health care to over 5,000 women a year, low-income women who need information about how to plan their families other than just abstinence that we know from alaska to florida has failed, this is an effort to take away from people an individual choice and to require and make the government -- this government, this congress, big government, the decider of individuals' lives instead of giving them choice. we have limited amount of time. i have five minutes and little time left. mr. pallone, if you'd like to take the remainder of my time, i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. pallone so he can have an opportunity to speak. thank you. mr. pallone: i thank the gentleman. i'm just amazed by the extortion that i heard on the other side of the aisle tonight. basically what the republicans said is that if we -- if planned parenthood agreed not to perform abortions, then they can continue to perform their other functions, but if they insist on performing abortions, then we're going to starve them for money and they won't be able to provide contraceptives and family planning and all the other health care services for women that are so important here. to me, that is just an incredible statement because essentially what you're saying is we'll extort this. we don't really care about all these other services that they're providing. what we really care about is abortion. and if you sign on the dotted line, then you can continue to perform the other health care services, as long as you don't perform the service that is allowed under the law of the land. now, i cannot believe that was actually stated here this evening, because i know and we all know all these other services, reproductive services and health care services are so important for women, so important for families, for me to hear a member on the other side suggest that somehow they're going to extort that and threaten that and hold that over everyone in order to accomplish this goal of saying you can't perform abortions, i think is outrageous. and i now understand what the purpose of this amendment is. it's to close down planned parenthood and all the good things that many of you admit they're actually doing just in order to accomplish this ideological goal related to abortion. i just think that is incredible. to me it's a -- to me, for the first time, i understand what it's all about. let's not be hypocritings about this. if that's what you're about, admit it. one person did. the rest of you are going on and on about all the terrible things planned parenthood has done. and frankly, most of the men and women who perform the services at planned parenthood are very well-meaning people and they shouldn't be attacked because of a few that haven't done the right thing. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've been a practicing physician for over 35 years. i've lived hundreds of babies. our president once asked, when does life begin? that's above my pay grade. i can tell you, mr. chairman, it's not above my pay grade. mr. fleming: and as a scientist and a physician, i can tell you life begins at conception, and that's often forgotten in this chamber right here. . abortion violates the central tenets of our culture and that is the killing of innocent life. and here is something you don't hear much in this chamber today. how is it that human beings, americans, can decide to kill an innocent human life? and the way we do it is through dehumanization. we think of that unborn baby to be something to be a part of the body. more people get upset about a dying pet than giving up their pregnancy for abortion. i say to you here today that i rise in support of the pence amendment. yes, of course, money is fungible, money goes in one account and then on elsewhere. anything that taxpayers do in terms of giving money to planned parent hood is subsidizing abortion. and we know that the american people by a small margin and growing margin oppose abortion but a wide margin of americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. and i would like to yield to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: all of those who have spoken on this issue, i recall back here on this floor in the early part when the mexico city vote came up and i remember that debate here on this floor. i remember watching the vote go up on the board, the language that would compel american taxpayers to fund abortion in foreign lands. first time in years, democrats lost the debate, but won the vote. and i saw members over on this side of the floor jumping up and down, cheering, cheering, what? because you had taken a step to compel americans to fund abortions in foreign lands. how can anyone cheer something like that. what was the moral standard that brought about such elation. it is confusion for me to think that we can't even describe what this is. i brought some possible ters to the floor of the house judiciary last week which showed what evacuation is. i don't know if there is anybody in this chamber could witness a abortion and lend their hand to such a thing. i remember buying the movie "silent scream" and watching eight minutes of parts of babies being put in a sustainless steel pan, a little leg, little arm, crushed skull all they added it up and sucked out the places that were missed. we are asking americans fund this through planned parenthood. here's where i would agree with mr. cohen. he made the point and i know he wouldn't agree, no funds should go to any entity that could perform a gasly, ghoul issue procedure and this house cannot compel american taxpayers to do so and we will put an end to the federal funding of planned parenthood and we'll shut off the funding to those entities that do that to unborn children in this country. thank you, and i yield back. mr. fleming: mr. chairman, i would like to say in conclusion to my remarks and i thank the gentleman from iowa that tonight, we're all getting tired, we have debated for three days and three nights. but in that same period of time, think about the number of babies who have been killed through abortion, through a sterile area where a doctor goes in and we have the usual instruments and so forth and the fetus sucked out of the womb and the mom on with her life but we know statistics tell us that these mothers just don't go with their lives as suggested by the other side. the rate of depression, the rate of suicide, the rate of problems with future pregnancies. they increase dramatically after abortion. tonight should be the beginning of the ending of this horrible practice. with that, i yield back to the chair. the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady from florida rise. >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: we were hired by our neighbors to come up to washington and fight for jobs and help get the country back on the road to recovery, but instead, this republican congress is taking an extreme right turn right back into the dark ages because they are targeting a very important initiative that has provided fundamental health services to women since 1970. to say no more will women depend on family planning in the united states of america have that lifeline any longer. that lifeline for breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, the annual pap smear for ar contraceptive. we can't go back to the dark ages and we aren't going to let you. as often has been misstated on this floor tonight, none of the money for family planning goes to pay for abortion. this is the false battle cry. in effect what they're doing is they want to cut off the lifeline for mothers and daughters, aunts, your friends, neighbors, who sometimes don't have a place to go to afford that important doctor's visit. there seems to be little, if any empathy for these women from the republican side of the aisle as they propose no alternative for providing this care and they don't seem to realize or frankly care that unintended pregnancies will rise if this program is abottle issued. cutting off these funds and eliminating care for women will not stop abortion, which is their claim. only family planning will stop abortion. the major consequence of wiping out title 10, which really means that all important trip to the doctors office for a woman who doesn't have any place to go for their breast cancer screening, annual exam, the only consequence, major consequence will be eliminating health care for millions of women while increasing the bill for taxpayers. for every dollar invested, taxpayers saved $4. so attacking reproductive health for women doesn't create jobs or improve the economic situations of our hometowns and that's what we should be debating for hours and hours tonight. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: i rise to remove funding for planned parenthood. in colorado, the voters passed an initiative 30 years ago and said no taxpayer dollars will go to abortion whether directly or indirectly. we decided in colorado that because money is fungible, giving taxpayer dollars to an organization that provides abortion, even if they say it doesn't go directly to abortion, does indeed fund it. this is because that taxpayer money frees up that organization's resources to be moved around on its books. money is fungible. taxpayer dollars enable planned parenthood to perform abortions and the sentiment in colorado is the same in the rest of america. americans don't want to use taxpayer dollars for abortions. until the day that planned parenthood stops performing abortions, it shouldn't get another taxpayer dollar. i urge my colleagues to support the pence amendment. i urge the balance of my time to mr. submit. mr. smith: the media and law enforcement take a second and critical look at planned parenthood. not only does planned parent hood lobby against parental consent laws thus enabling secret abortions for very young girls to be procured in their clinics, but we have learned from recent investigations at several of its clinics that planned parenthood employees were found to be more than eager to assist people posing as sex traffickers to procure abortions for underaged girls. as the prime responser of the protection act of 2000, i found it appalling to watch planned parenthood personnel again and again and again offer to provide and facilitate abortions for hypothetical sex trafficking victims as young as 13. in light of a recent comprehensive study suggesting that 100,000 american girls, mostly runawaist are forced into pros titution each year average age of 13, the n.g.o. headed by lila rose that did the undercover work is a grave invitation for serious investigation by the attorney general of the united states and law enforcement everywhere and further begs the question, why are taxpayers giving hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year to planned parenthood? despite the best and slickest market branding money could buy, the stubborn fact remains that planned parenthood clinics are among the most dangerous places on earth for a child and its own personnel are taking a second look and thanks to ultrasound are clearly seeing what is being down done to millions of children in the womb that the babies exterminated in planned parenthood abortion clinics in 2009 alone. one of those abortion providers who took a second look and walked away is abby johnson, a former planned parenthood abortion clinic director. in her book "unplanned," abby johnson exposes the cruelty of what really goes on behind closed doors at a planned parenthood clinic and writes how she witnessed and assisted in an abortion of a 13-week-old baby i by holding the ultrasound probe and it was the first ultrasound-guided abortion at that facility and writes, the details startled me. at 13 weeks, you could clearly see the profile of the head, both arms, legs and even tiny fingers and toes. with my eyes glued to the image of this perfectly formed baby, i watched as a new image emerged on the video screen, a straw-shaped instrument attached to the end of the tube had been incertificated into the uterus and nearing the baby's side and looked like an invader on the screen. it just looked wrong. she goes, my heart speed up and time slowed. i didn't want to look but didn't want to stop looking either. the baby didn't seem aware. it probed the baby's side and for a quick second i felt relief but i couldn't shake it as i watched the screen. this is an abortion clinic director saying this. the next movement was a sudden jerk of a tiny foot of the baby as he started kicking as they are trying to move from the probing invader. move to strike the last word. the chair: for what purpose does new jersey rise? mr. smith: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: the baby began struggling to turn and twist away and seemed that the baby could feel it and did not like the feeling and the doctor's voice broke through, beam me up scotty, the abortionist said lighthardly and he was turning on the suction and it isn't on until he feels he has the instrument in the right place. the clinic director went on to right, i had a sudden urge to yell stop, to shake the woman and say look at what is happening to your baby. wake up, hurry. stop them. but even as i was thinking those words, i thought of my own hands and saw my own hands holding the probe. i was one of them performing this act of abortion. my eyes shot back to the screen. the instrument was already being rotated by the doctor and i could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. but for the briefest moment, looks like the baby was being running like a dish cloth, sweezed and the baby disappeared into the instrument before my very eyes. last thing i saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube and then everything was gone. the image of that tiny, dead baby, mangled and sucked away kept replaying in my mind. what was this this woman's womb was alive, wasn't tissue or cells, but a human baby fighting for life. a battle was lost in the blimping of an eye. what i have told people for years, eight years as a clinic director at a planned parenthood clinic, what i believe, taught and defended is a lie. i ask members to read this book "unplanned" and realize the scandal of the killing of children and calling it choice. . there is nothing compassionate or just or nurturing about abortion. earlier one of our colleagues called abortion healthy for the child. abortion dismembers children piece to piece. planned parenthood's own fact sheet talks about d.n.e. abortions, done during the second trimester are period. have you seen what a d.n.e. is. the doctor goes in with forceps , this device, and literally hacks that baby to death. planned parenthood itself says it takes 10-20 minutes to literally dismember that child. then there's the shots in the heart, there's a group called late-term abortion and a doctor right here in this area who gives them cardiac sticks with a burst of air which kills the unborn child. we know it's not healthy for children or women either. mr. speaker, mr. pence's amendment simply seeks to end u.s. taxpayer complicit with this massive violence against children. who we back, who we subsidize does matter, not just what but who. planned parenthood does 330,000 -- more than 300,000 abortions each and every year. each and every year. they are the largest provider, about 1/4 of all abortions in the united states. it is child abuse and time to take a second look at child abuse incorporated. support the pence amendment. i yield back. p the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i had planned to speak of something else but the gentleman from new jersey has just put my stomach in knots because i'm one of those women he spoke about just now. i had a procedure at 17 weeks, pregnant with a child that had moved from the vagina into the cervix. and that procedure that you just talked about was a procedure that i endured. i lost a baby. but for you to stand on this floor and to suggest, as you have, that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought is preposterous. to think that we are here tonight debating this issue when the american people, if they are listening, are scratching their heads and wondering what does this have to do with me getting a job? what does this have to do with reducing the deficit? and the answer is nothing at all. there is a vendetta against planned parenthood, and it was played out in this room tonight. planned parenthood has a right to operate. planned parenthood has a right to provide services for family planning. planned parenthood has a right to offer abortions. last time i checked, abortions were legal in this country. you may not like planned parenthood, so be it. there's many on our side of the aisle that don't like halliburton. and halliburton is responsible for extortion, for bribery, for 10 cases of misconduct in the federal database, for a $7 billion sole source contract. but do you see us over here filing amendments to wipe out funding for halliburton? no, because frankly that would be irresponsible. i would suggest to you it would serve us all very well if we moved on with this process and started focusing on creating jobs for the americans who desperately want them. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the distinguished majority leader rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized 5. mr. cantor: this is not about federal funding of abortion which the hyde amendment prohibits. we all know, however, money is fungible. taxpayer dollars are going to keep the lights on and the doors open and to pay for things which freezes up money for abortion. recently, planned parenthood has been caught red-handed. in several different clinics, including one in my hometown of richmond, aiding and abetting sex trafficking and prostitution of minors. now, the other side continues to say that planned parenthood has a right to operate. they don't have a right to do that. you cannot argue that an organization that engages in patterns of conduct such as those revealed in the videos even in clinics such as that in my hometown, you cannot argue that an organization like that cares about the rights of women and girls she purports to serve. so, mr. speaker, i ask you, why on earth are we given $363 million in taxpayer funds every year to planned parenthood? it is time to say no more. the time has come to respect the wishes of a vast majority of americans who admitly opposed giving taxpayer dollars for abortion. that is why i support this amendment, mr. speaker, and that is why i urge my colleagues to do the same, and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: what i heard in the course of my campaign was the urgency to get people back to work, to strengthen the middle class, to create jobs and deal with the deficit. and we just spent the last three hours under the cloak of deficit reduction. my friends on the other side of the aisle have pushed this very extreme amendment, which is targeting women's health care and women's health care providers. this ideological attack comes at the expense of our nation's women. it's an attack on planned parenthood health centers and will put the lives of million of women at risk. millions of women who seek and receive health care at planned parenthood centers all around this country. every year planned parenthood doctors and nurses carry out nearly one million life-saving screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams. its health centers provide contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients and nearly four million patients are treated for sexually transmitted infections, including h.i.v. planned parenthood provides preventative health care and that represents 90% of its work. we already have a federal prohibition against using federal funds for abortion. not a single penny intended or targeted by this amendment is used to terminate a pregnancy. what we should be talking about is getting the american people back to work, creating jobs, responsibly dealing with our deficit, and doing everything we can to strengthen the middle class. that's what we were sent here to do. that's what we should be doing. and i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment so we can get back to the important business of putting americans back to work. i yield my time to susan davis. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. cicilline: no, i yield the balance of my time to mrs. davis. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. i bet the american people are really surprised tonight because we are debating a continuing resolution when they are facing tremendous challenges. and we should be thinking about them and the challenges that they face. we should be talking, as my colleague has said, about how to save money and how to create jobs. but instead, we're debating an amendment that will do neither. it will do neither. and it will undermine women's health. this amendment denies women access to reproductive care and it attacks the health providers that they rely on in their communities. these are health providers that are serving the underserved, and we are spending the evening attacking them. planned parenthood plays a critical role in our nation's health care system. we know that. these clinics have over three million americans every year, and over 90% of the care they provide is preventative. preventative. what does that mean? we have many physicians here. what does that mean, preventative care? preventative care means that men and women do not have to go through more costly procedures and even that their lives can be saved. one in five american women have been through a planned parenthood health center for services like breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening. we talked about all that this evening. i cannot let san diego families lose these valuable services. i will not let that happen. because i know that when women have better access to these services, it leads to healthier outcomes for both the women and their children. but this amendment proposes to cut these services under the guise somehow of being fiscally responsible. that's not true. what i know about my state of california is that title 10 supported centers save $581 ,900,000 in public funds in 2008 alone. so let's talk about saving money. let's talk about creating jobs. let's not talk about constricting women's access to health care. vote no on the pence amendment. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. this has been a good debate this evening. and i want to thank the speaker and mr. chairman, i thank you, also, for the time that you have allowed for this body to stand and have this debate. and there's been a lot said. a couple of things i think do need to be corrected. we are thinking about the american taxpayer. and we are thinking about our responsibility to the taxpayer. this is not a debate about a vendetta. it is not a debate about planned parenthood. it is not a debate about something that is extreme. what this is tonight is a debate about our stewardship and our responsibility to the american people. our discussion tonight, and i thank mr. pence for his leadership in this, is how we fund this government in a responsible manner, how we get this government back on track. and the taxpayers are weighing in, and they are reminding us that we, the members of the house, are the keepers of the purse of this great nation. and that it is important that we have these discussions, and they want us to do it respectfully, they want us to do it responsibly, and they want us to make wise decisions. and quite frankly, mr. speaker, to give $363 million in funds to an organization that has conducted itself -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. . the chair: the gentlelady is right, the committee is not in order. the committee will come to order. the gentlelady may continue. mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker to give $363 million in taxpayer funds, taxpayer funds, to an organization that has not conducted itself in a manner that suggests they deserve those funds is not respectful of the taxpayer. i want to go back to what mr. pence said at the beginning of the debate. this is a debate about who pays. no one is saying that planned parenthood has to stop operating or has to stop being an advocate for abortion. what we are seeing is that the american taxpayer should not have to foot the bill. especially for an organization that is facing criminal charges, that has admitted wrongdoing, that is accused of endangering the safety of minors. the american taxpayer should not have to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on this. i encourage my colleagues to stand for appropriate stewardship of the taxpayer dollars and to support and vote yes on the pence amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i had not intended to get into this particular debate -- >> this would end the debate and i would hope that that agreement could be agreed to. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. who seeks recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. pence: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. rogers: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the committee will now rise. the chair: the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 1 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has come -- has had under consideration h.r. 1 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent to proceed for one minute out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, we have had a very elevated week of debate about the entire government. this is one of those very rare occasions where the congress for a single span of time debates practically every element in the federal budget. that is a very, very rare occurrence and i think we have had an elevated debate on both sides of the aisle. i want to commend democrats and republicans for a good debate on a whole host of issues. we are making progress, but we have a ways yet to go. i want to thank mr. dicks, the ranking member, for being very helpful in moving this process along. and i have to pause, mr. speaker and remind us all of how important staff is to what we do. this staff has been fantastic. we have been working with mr. dicks and leadership on both sides to try to find a way to make the debate concise and reasonable in time. and we have reached an agreement that we want to pro pound to the body now which we think is fair and give e -- everyone the opportunity. i ask unanimous consent during further consideration of h.r. 1, pursuant to house resolution 92, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member on the committee of appropriations for the purpose of debate and except -- and these amendments. number 8, 13, 19, 23, 38, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 79, 80, 83, 88, 89, 94, 99, 101, 109, 117, 120, 126, 127, 137, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 151 -- do i hear 154? 159, 164, 166, 172, 174, 177, 185, 199, 200, 207, 216, 217, 233, 241, 2346, 251, 261, 263, 266, 267, 268, 274, 280, 281, 296, 323, 329, 330, 331, 333, 336, 342, 344, 345, 348, 367, 369, 377, 392, 400, 401, 405, 408, 419, 424, 429, 430, 439, 448, 463, 464, 465, 467, 471, 480, 481, 482, 496, 497, 504, 5 15, 119, 525, 526, 533, 534, 536, 54 , 48, 55 , 560, 563, 66, 567, 569, 570, 577, 578 and 583. amendments 27, 278, 466 and 545, each of which shall be debatable for 20 minutes. amendments 104 and 540, each of which shall be debatable for 30 minutes and amendments 273, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes. amendment 575, which shall be debatable for 60 minutes and each such printed amendment may be offered only by the member who caused it to be printed in the record or a designee shall not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate and shall not be subject forp demand of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole and that except as otherwise in this order, each printed amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes and all specified periods of debate shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent. and i yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: reserving the right to object. and mr. frank -- i just want want to join the chairman in congratulating the staff. this is the hardest working staff i have ever seen in my career. the effort that's put in on a bipartisan basis. this is the most cohesive and professional staff i have seen. i have been up here on the hill for over 40 years and i just want to say that jennifer miller and david worked hard to put this agreement together. we asked for some additional time. our members wanted a chance to express themselves on some of these very important and sensitive issues that are in this legislation, but it is my judgment that we should not object and accept this agreement and proceed forward and finish this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i am a dissenter in this orgy of self congratulations and if i can't explain, i have to object. i either explain or object. i object not to the u.c. at this point but to the self-congratlation that the majority is engaging in because they had such an open process, the reputation was stated by the gentleman from kentucky and said we debated the whole government. yes, we have and very inappropriately. to debate the whole government and to debate fundamental policy issues under the guise of a budget, under the constraints of a budget debate and not a whole week, two and-a-half days so far, maybe we'll get a third day, we have dealt with the most fundamental questions, issues came up under great constraint. the reform bill of last year has been damaged by what was done here, fortunately it will never become law and we were constrained because we had to choose between the s.e.c. and the i.r.s. this is not an open process. yes, you could offer amendments. you could offer amendments in a very narrow compass or according to the jurisdiction of subcommittees. that is accidental. it doesn't determine public policy and yes, we talk about it now. we are boasting about debating the whole government. did my colleagues listen to the u.c. you will get to debate whole aspects of the government for 10 minutes. the next thing you know, they will be rioting in parts of the world so they can have 10 minutes to debate. this is a travesty. i very much objected to this procedure. my leadership for which i have great respect, had asked me if they could go forward. i am prepared to allow that because of some conditions. one is that i am confident that this awful, distorted ill-thought-out process has produced a bill that will never see the light of day and no one should be surprised. we are now going to recess after we finish with all these other parts of the government in 10 minutes per issue or up to an hour, 20 minutes for moderately important ones. the senate will get this with four days left before it expires and no one thinks this is going to happen. so perhaps some of thes were nullified. this is an awful procedure. we have debated the government and gone beyond budgetary issues in 3 1/2 days. this is openness? this is a travesty of the democratic process. so, mr. speaker, because i have been given a chance to explain why i think this is a terrible process, why i am going to say now, i don't expect the senate to accept this. we will have to come back and do it again and there will be a short-term extension. i want to give notice to all parties, i will object stricken youously to any effort to -- strenuously to repeat this travesty. respect to the ranking member and minority whip and minority leader and others and to the poor long suffering staff, yes, i will remove my reservation and i will not object having made it clear, once the senate gives this awful product an appropriate burial, i will not be a party to its resuscitation. mr. speaker, i remove my reservation. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask to proceed out of order for one minute. mr. rogers: i reserve the right to object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. rogers: reserve the right to object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: to sit here and listen after having spent four years dealing with the most closed -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend? the house is not in order. will everybody take their conversations off the floor, please? the gentleman may resume. mr. gohmert: having spent the last four years dealing with the most closed congress, the last congress in fact with more closed rules than any congress in american history, and then to be lectured about what is a travesty is a travesty. that's the real travesty. that many closed rules and you come down here and want to tell us what is awful? try standing here for the last four years and dealing with closed rules, closed rule, closed rule, no amendments, we're not going to let you represent your people because we're going to cram everything down. that's a travesty. i will not yield. i listened to you. let's get on with the democratic process because that's what it is when you get to hear from both sides. we heard from one side. we heard travesty several times and now we'll get back with the democratic process. and with that i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws. without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent to proceed out of turn to discuss the schedule for the evening. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: now that we do have the u.c. in place, we intend to take up five amendments this evening -- or this morning. there will not be recorded votes this evening. so members that wish to would be able to leave. but we will debate five of the amendments under the u.c. and roll the votes until tomorrow. mr. speaker, i also want to add briefly my thanks especially along with mr. dicks. our thanks to jennifer miller on our side and david pomerantz, the ones who crafted this u.c. very diligently and accurately and want to thank them especially for their work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. pursuant who house resolution 92 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole under the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole in the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: making appropriations for the department of defense and the other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 359, line 22. pursuant to the order of the house of today, no further amendment may be offered except those specified in the previous order which is at the desk. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: mr. speaker, the house is not in order and i do have an amendment at the desk entitled 533. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee is not in order. will all members on both sides of the aisle please take your conversations to the cloakroom and off the floor? the gentleman from alaska is recognized and may continue. mr. young: i do have an amendment at the desk, 533. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 533 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. young: we must explore the environmental resources in a safe and substantial manner. we must allow that exploration work to proceed without bureaucratic impediments. this amendment accomplishes both. this amendment would limit funds in the bill from being used by the environmental appeals board, e.a.p., to validate any permit issued by the environmental protection agency, e.p.a., for activities of the arctic outer continental shelf, o.c.f., the e.a.p. is part of the e.p.a. that -- >> the house is not in order. i at least want to hear what the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee is not in order. will the members please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman from alaska may kin. mr. young: the e.a.p. is part of the e.p.a. that hears civil penalty decisions of the agency. the e.p.a. is populated by environmental appeals judges who are largely associated with e.p.a. or the justice department. this amendment does not circumvent the e.p.a.'s authority and instead continues to give permitting decisions to the professionals in the regional offices. what this amendment will do is remove the ability for the lawyers to overrule e.p.a. permit writers. over $40 billion have been invested in trying to drill exploratory wells to date and not a single well has been drilled because of e.p.a. air permits. this is an example where an agency is trying to issue the permits correctly but they have a board that can listen to someone who objects to it that rules against them. and we have in fact had a little over 680 leases in the arctic ocean. oil that we need being held up by bureaucrats. we will do this safely. the air will be clean. they're 80 miles from any human other than those that work on these ships. and if you believe it's right to buy this oil from overseas, shame on you. again, we are spending close to 40 billion this year or more buying foreign oil, 72% of our oil is coming from overseas. the right thing to do is allow us to explore and find out if that oil is there and if it is, to develop it. remember, we're not the only ones in the arctic anymore. iceland, greenland, china, russia are all drilling. we're the only ones not involved and yet we have the best equipment, the best environmental records in the arctic. we have the proper equipment to do it safely. it's being held up by bureaucrats that don't want to issue the permits. e.p.a. said it's all right but the review board says no, it's not. within the agency itself. all this says is it they have the permit issued, then it should go forth and let's get on to serving this country as we should for the benefit of this nation, for the benefit of those so we don't have to go to war over the middle east over oil. so if you don't like what's going on over there, let's support this amendment. i believe it's the correct thing and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: the amendment stops funding for the environmental appeals board to consider review, reject, remand or otherwise invalidate any permit issued for outer continental shelf sources located offshore of the states along the arctic coast. now, the gentleman has shared with us a specific situation but his amendment goes considerably beyond that. the appeals board is the final decisionmaker on administrative appeals under all major environmental statutes the environmental protection agency administers. it's an impartial body, independent of all agency components outside the immediate office of the administrator. to support this amendment is to take away people's right to petition their government. this is an impartial board that looks out for the regular citizen. in fact, they just took great care and ruled on the side of alaskans and courageously ruled against e.p.a.'s issuance of a permit to shell -- to shale oil. i thought the gentleman and his side of the aisle would take sincere joy in any decision, ruling against e.p.a. but that's not the case, apparently. i guess e.p.a. is ok as long as it doesn't use any federal funds and rules exactly the way that you want them to. and in fact, the e.p.a. did rule the way that the gentleman wants. it's just that we have an appeals board. that appeals board is there for good reason, has been for some time. i don't have to tell the gentleman, but i think the other members of this body should know that the environmental appeals board found that e.p.a.'s analysis of the affect on alaskan native communities of nitrogen oxide limited the agency to do the work. doesn't mean they can't drill. the analysis is incomplete. we should let that legal process work and stop interfering in long-standing regulatory and administrative processes. the amendment will be seen as an assault on the environment and an affront to the alaskans who engaged. i'm disappointed at the gentleman's position and would appear to favor big oil over the small alaskanvilleages that are being protected in this reconsideration. it doesn't mean that they won't be drilling. it simply means the analysis to enable that drilling needs to be full and complete. and at this point i would urge defeat of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. young: parliamentary inquiry. how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from alaska has two minutes left. mr. young: i'll take 30 second. i want to suggest one thing, the native communities in alaska support this. they support drilling. i had them in my office. to say that, i represent that state, notal ex-and degreea -- and not alexandria, virginia. i yield to mr. simpson. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: they purchased the communities outside the arctic shelf. the company paid $2.1 billion for these lease rights, a reflection of the vast reserves off alaska's coast. shell applied for air permits from the e.p.a. for its buford leases in 2006 and the company went through a lengthy and burdensome administrative process. shell's permits were initially approved but subsequently overturned by the e.p.a.'s environmental appeal board. last year the appropriations committee addressed the problem by including language in the f.y. 2010 conference report, specifically directing the agency to allocate sufficient funds and personnel to process the o.c.s. permits in a timely manner. this simply did not happen. the company is effectively at square one after spending millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours. shell announced just this month it had canceled plans for drilling in the arctic in the 2011 drilling season, which is a very short drilling season. they have spent millions on this and done everything by the book. and the appeals board has decided that because they should have foreseen that the rules were going to change that they shouldn't have issued these air permits. i think it's an overreach by the e.p.a. and by the appeals board and i support this amendment and would encourage my colleagues to vote for it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. has two minutes remaining. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i would underscore some points previously made. number one, we are not taking a position on the merits of this case. it may very well be, i would not be surprised, in fact, personally, that ultimately the drilling off the arctic coast would be approved. but this is like taking a case to the district court, the district court agrees with you, and then the plaintiff appeals, goes to the appeals court of the, the appeals court disagrees, or says there needs to be more information. that's exactly what this appeals board did. . that information is being gathered and being presented, and when it is, i don't know why the appeals board would not agree with the e.p.a. decision. the problem with this amendment is that we're setting a precedent to say if we don't like the appeals board, we like the district court decision, which is in this case, e.p.a.'s decision and accept e.p.a.'s decision and ignore that appeals process. that's what we are opposed to. it seems to me we ought not to be legislating that kind of judicial decision that affects many people's lives, and the environment, without a full hearing. what's going to happen if this legislation were passed is that the decision-making process that allows this drilling will be suspect and a permit will not be able to be fully issued without reservation. for that reason, i would suggest that the right thing to do is defeat this amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. moran: mr. chair, i call for a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. mr. nadler: i rise as designee of the the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 524 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: this is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by mr. conyers, mr. paul, myself and mr. jones. the amendment would prohibit the use of any funds made available in this act to make an application for what is commonly known as a section 215 order requiring the production of library circulation records, library pennsylvania tronless book sale records or customer list. it is drawn to protect the privacy of all americans from unwarranted governmental investigation into their beliefs and thoughts. what we read, where we read or listen to, the type of information we seek, our tastes in art and music alltel a great deal about us. the right to be free from these areas is necessary to protect our rights of free speech, religious liberty, liberty of conscience, and political freedom. this amendment will not prevent the government from obtaining this type of information providing it obtains the constitutionally required warrant. what it will stop is the use of 215 orders which is issued by the fisa court under a standard so loose it is almost impossible for the government to get turned down instead of the normal warrant. the secret court has become a rubber stamp for the government. the amendment will not stop the use of section 215 orders in other investigations, such as surveillance of computer communications even if conducted in libraries. section 215 authorizes the government to obtain, quote, any tangible thing, closed quote, so long as the government provides a statement of facts to show there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things are relevant to a foreign intelligence or international terrorism or espionage investigation. this would include business records, library records, tax records, educational records or medical records. before the enactment of 215, only special orders issued by the secret court and the government had to show specific facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the record pertains is an agent of a foreign power, in other words specific reason to believe that the person you were talking about is either a foreign agent or terrorist. this dragnet approach allows -- does not meet those specific facts allows the government to review personal records even if there is no reason to believe if the individual is involved in terrorism. this poses a threat to individual rights in the most sense if i have areas of our lives. while congress has decided to extend the life of section 215 that does these things in the next few months and i hope we can take a closer look at it, i think it is appropriate and necessary for us to provide some reasonable protection for these very limited and sensitive areas, in effect, cutting out library records from the section 215 extension that we have just voted. do not believe the scare tactics of this amendment that it might impede investigations or make us vulnerable to terrorism. the government has tools to investigate terrorism and other types of wrongdoing. section 215 is rarely used. search warrants and other investigative tools would still be available to the government. in any event, most of section 215 is unaffected by this amendment and will continue this amendment pertains only to library records. when we last considered this amendment a number of years ago, it passed this house overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. today, representative conyers and i offer it with two republican colleagues, the gentleman from texas, mr. paul and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. i urge the colleagues to pass this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. wolf: as the gentleman from new york, the congress is considering temporary extension of the patriot act. the re-authorization process not in this c.r., is the proper venue to consider any changes to existing intelligence-gathering laws. applications for fisa orders seeking library records may be approved by the federal bureau of investigation, deputy director of the fishe or deputy assistant director. there is absolutely no evidence that this authority has been abused or misused to unlawfully acquire library or business records. this prohibition, this prohibition could create a safe hafe i don't knowen for terrorists to utilize america can's liberears to communicate with each other. and i urge to vote no. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. mr. nadler: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. nadler: i yield to the gentleman from from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: as the ranking member on the subcommittee of justice, i rise in support of this amendment. i think that the prohibition is an appropriate one. it's a specific carveout for library records related to american citizens. they would be available on the warrant petitioned for and received through the secret court that handles these matters, but this would take away the administrative procedure which has been rarely used and i agree with the gentleman from virginia there is no reason to believe it would be abused. the real point is that we as america cavens find it our right to -- americans find it our right that we don't have a circumstance in which we have a fishing expedition by law enforcement. so i support the prohibition amendment and it did pass by bipartisan vote and offered on a bipartisan basis and i hope that the house considers it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i urge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does purpose the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> mr. chairman, i have amendment 424. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. would the the gentleman from specify the number of his amendment. mr. fortenberry: number 42. the clerk: amendment number 424 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. the chair: pursuant of the order of the house for today, the gentleman from nebraska and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. chairman. in 2008, this body passed the child soldiers prevention act. it was part of the william wilbur force prevention act. the bill declared that the united states would not provide military assistance to countries found guilty of child con subscription and we described that this is an afront to human dignity and afront to civilization itself. we made it known all children no matter where they are should be on playgrounds and not battle grounds. it is difficult for us to envision that a child would be in military clothes and gun in hand and forced to fight but it does happen. the government of chad to which we provide military assistance was found guilty of using child soldiers in the 2010 state department tratchinging in persons report. as the law we passed provided, chad was granted a national security interest waiver in the hopes that chad would take aggressive strives toward ending this serious human rights violation and be a valuable military partner with the united states but we have to ask, where is the progress? with the withdrawal of the u.n. mission in chad at the end of last year, children as young as 13 years old are being preyed upon as child soldiers. the united nationses, there were reports warning of chad's continuing to flout our law. "washington post" along with other international media outlets have given attention to this in recent days. to use child soldiers is wrong and this is why we passed the law in the first place. yes, we want a good military relationship with chad. chad is a military partner, but to strengthen that partnership, the horrific abuse of children must end. so i offer this amendment as a challenge to our government. we are operating inconsistently. we pass a law saying one thing but continue military assistance with no apparent attentiveness to stop the use of child soldiers. several years ago, i was in the country of liberia and had the opportunity to visit the interior part of that country as well. liberia had gone through a civil war and this area we were in had been caught in a crossfire between rebel groups and i was visiting a missionary school run by a british catholic priest. the children came out sang us a song and greeted us. the priest told us during the worst part of the war, he had been abducted, his children had been left unattended and many had died from starvation and he showed me the mass graves and he asked me to spend a few minutes with him. we went to a classroom and he pulled two young boys out of that classroom and told me these had been child soldiers, one had been shot in the hip, the other had had his father killed while he was standing next to him. both of them were withdrawn and wouldn't look me in the eye. but this priest wanted to thank me and to thank the american people for providing a little bit of assistance to him to help integrate these children back to some agree of normalcy. we need to be consistent. on one side of the hallway, we have a good program to help heal those who have been victimized by child soldiers but on the other hand, we are aiding a government that is not stopping this pernicious practice. the unyielding and litigationist whom the anti-trafficking law said this, you may choose to look the other way but you may never say again that you did not know. mr. chairman, we must make it clear to the government of chad that we now know and we cannot look the other way. . mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? i want him to know we're prepared on our side to accept his amendment. mr. fortenberry: i appreciate that. thank you for the kind words. >> will the gentleman yield? we also will accept the amendment. mr. fortenberry: with that i'll yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: all time has been yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. those in favor of the amendment say aye. and those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to offer an amendment, h.r. 1, amendment number 23. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: this is the full year continuing appropriations act that would help people living with h.i.v. aids who cannot afford their treatment by reallocating additional funding to our nation's aids drug assistance program. i'm pleased at this time to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my distinguished colleague and very good friend and colleague from florida, ms. debbie wassermann shultz. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wassermann shultz: i rise today in support of amendment 23 offered by mr. hastings, my good friend from florida, which would help people living with hiv-aids to afford treatment through the program. this program known as atap helps to provide people with medication which has little or no coverage. this program is undeniably in the midst of a devastating funding crisis. the combination of an economic recession and testing of h.i.v. have created the perfect storm against atap's fiscal situation. more patients are requiring atap treatment as the program has been emptied out and resulted in drastic cuts in services and 10 different states ended up on waiting lists to receive these life-saving drugs. in my own state of florida with the largest of all waiting lists, 3,276 individuals languish without access to affordable life-saving treatments. our state lowered eligibility to 300% below the poverty level and at the same time reducing the formula for the patients who still qualify. this is an enormous problem with a state with the third highest hiv-aids population and the highest rate of new infections in the country. you may be shocked to know that the new infection rate in south florida is higher than in africa. we cannot let this happen in our own back yard to our neighbors and constituents. though our administration demonstrated funding atap is a priority, we just keep hitting the wall. current funding levels for this program are unsustainable and we must do more to help. this amendment would help give the atap program a much-needed boost and help thousands of patients access to treatment they desperately need. in this budgetary climate we must make smart and sensible decisions where we can afford to make an administrative haircut if the tradeoff is saving lives. it's our moral imperative to do so. by ensuring these funds we assure those living with h.i.v. in our communities, they can access the treatment to stem the tide and we save our nation money in the long term. i strongly urge you to support the efforts of this responsible and compassionate amendment. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time 3. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i understand what mr. hastings is doing here, and i, too, support the work of the aids drug assistance program, what it does across the country ensuring 500,000 americans who can't otherwise afford it receive the drugs they need for the treatment of the h.i.v. virus. this is one of the critical services offered to many who cannot afford it and helps improve their health and maintain the public's health in general. just last year the department of health and human services had to reallocate $25 million to help states that had a lengthy waiting list. people hanging in limbo without access to the medication that we know will help them. and in these difficult economic times more and more people find themselves unable to afford treatment. more than 700 americans were put on that waiting list in one month in 2010. improving access to care is a priority for me and for those of my colleagues. but this amendment is one that attempts to correct a piece of legislation that is not fixable. we simply cannot rob peter to pay paul. this amendment will pull important resources from two accounts that the republicans have already decimated that are critical to the public health of our country. the c.d.c., center for disease control, and the national institutes of health. i therefore encourage my colleague from florida to work with me to defeat this reckless continuing resolution rather than amend a bill that is beyond repair. i yield back the balance of my time. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, i will. >> we have no objection to the amendment and are prepared to accept the amendment. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent my full statement be made a part of the record and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection. and the gentleman yields back his time. all time having been yielded back, the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 483. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 483 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. >> mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, recently a woman came to my children's school to talk about the healing power of forgiveness. she was a survivor of the 1994 rewanda genocide when nearly one million people were mercilessly hunted, hacked, and killed. now let's fast ward to the year 2007, in an ironic twist, rwanda's president expressed his interest in reducing the number of births of children in that country by 50%. in recent weeks, confusing reports have surfaced as to whether the rwanda government had launched a campaign setting a target for hundreds of thousands of male sterilizations. while the report, which implied possible complicit of u.s. funded organizations were subsequently dismissed, the concerns they raised are very real. let's note china's one-child policy, or peru. mr. chairman, the united states should be a champion for human dignity, and yet sadly we have our own sordid past with sterilization campaigns. in 1924, the state of virginia passed what was called the racial integrity act which remained intact well into my own lifetime until it was overturned by the supreme court. i think the title the racial integrity act speaks for itself. legislation so outrageous that governor warner, now senator warner issued a statement of apology in 2002 saying we must remember the commonwealth's past mistakes in order to prevent them from recurring, he said. mr. chairman, this is a proceed scriptive -- precipitationive amendment which is consistent with law that seeks to stop human rights abuse and we will not return to the shameful past or impose it to other people in other places about america's tax dollars. this amendment i believe is a reasonable application and extension of the current law. it's important because sterilization campaigns involving a subtle element of real or perceived moral persuasion defected -- directed at vulnerable individuals can easily blur the distinction between what is voluntary and involuntary. the question here is whether to take hard-earned taxpayer dollars and apply them in these campaigns, aggressive outreach, to sterilize persons. mr. chairman, while i recognize that this amendment has been ruled out of order, i do believe it is a reasonable application and extension of current law. however, i will accept the judgment of the chair and withdraw this amendment now i've said my peace. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk, number 466. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the number of the amendment again. >> 466. the clerk: amendment number 466 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my fellow texans, mr. barton and mr. carter for co-sponsoring and introducing amendment 466 in their commitment to block funding for new e.p.a. greenhouse gas mandates. this amendment will eliminate funding for the e.p.a. to be used to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to the emissions of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. this amendment will put an end to a backdoor attempt made by the e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases to go around congress and circumvent the will of the people. americans have rejected this policy. and despite being rejected by congress, the administration has ignored the will of the people, the law, and to further some political agenda. it's absolutely necessary that congress take immediate action to ensure that the e.p.a. does not continue to destroy industry across the board in our country. we're in the midst of a massive economic downturn and the last thing we need to do is shoot ourselves in the foot with unnecessary, expensive new regulations that are on business and industry, not to mention americans would be left holding the bag. past attempts to regulate greenhouse gases would cost american taxpayers up to $200 billion a year. the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes up about 15% or the cost of each american household an extra $1,700. this amendment, section 1746 of the c.r., that none of the funds made available to the e.p.a. are to be used in force or promulgate any regulation relating to state limitation plans or permit. further, 466 takes the c.r. a step further prohibiting the e.p.a. from enforcing national regulation of greenhouse gases similar to the cap and trade regulations. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like unanimous consent to introduce a "wall street journal" article, january 4, 2011, that says the e.p.a. is at war with texas. the chair: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment basically prohibits the e.p.a. from overregulating not only the state of texas but the rest of the states regarding greenhouse gases. probably no member of congress represents more refineries than i do in southeast texas, and the regulatory process, the overregulation of the e.p.a. coming in and trying to now regulate the state of texas regarding greenhouse gases is a detriment to the industry. the state of texas regulates greenhouse gases, the state of texas regulates the industry, has done a good job, and this is overreaching on the part of the e.p.a. and it's time for the e.p.a. not to put industry out of business, put the refinery industry out of business, and this amendment will rein them in and prohibit them from implementing the so-called cap and trade philosophy on states such as texas and other states. . the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this entire bill, this c.r. is replete with amendment after amendment targeting the public self and the environment. this is one of the worst, at least in its intent. as a practical manner, it is not clear why it is being offered as it appears to dupe apply indicate section of the -- 1746 of the underlying bill. these are radical attempts to stop the environmental protection agency of doing its job of protecting the health and welfare of every american. this would bar e.p.a. from addressing carbon pollution, period. it would endanger public health and the environment. it not only guts the clean air act but also imposes a job-destroying construction ban in many states. according to the national academy of sciences, of all of the world's major economies, manmade pollution is changing the climate and is endangering the public's health and environment. the american lung association, american public health association and thousands of doctors and nurses and other public health provesals support e.p.a.'s action on this public health threat but this amendment bars from them acting and carrying it from acting. power plants and refineries need to make sure that they have taken reasonable steps to reduce their carbon pollution, because it's easier to control pollution from the beginning, the point where a facility is being built rather than waiting and trying to retrofit it after it has been constructed. and all e.p.a. is asking that these large new facilities be energy efficient, they can meet the standard if they meet energy efficiency standards. the poe amendment would prevent from implementing this requirement to protect the public health from the dangerous sources of carbon pollution. e.p.a. plans to set standards for the two sources for power plants and oil refineries. this amendment would prevent e.p.a. from even proposing these standards and those standards are really a limitation on what they could and i think should be doing in terms of regulating pollution throughout the country. but they are going to stick to the two largest sources. given all the rhetoric we have heard about environmental regulations hurting the economy, this poe amendment is a job destroyer. under the clean air act, a company wanting to build or expand a power plant or other facility has to get a permit for that facility's carbon pollution before beginning construction. the poe amendment does nothing to change that. what it does do is to take e.p.a.'s authority to issue those permits. so that amounts to a construction ban. this is more than a paperwork problem. the poe amendment will impose that defacto ban in at least 13 states and without the needed permits, construction cannot proceed. a vote for that is a defacto construction ban, thousands of jobs lost in states across this country. that's why we strongly very oppose the poe amendment and do support e.p.a.'s authority to cut carbon pollution and allow power plants and refineries and other facilities to proceed as planned. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: contrary to what the gentleman says, state of texas, power plants and refineries are already being regulated and being regulated by the state of texas and the refineries, those that i represent, probably more than any person in the united states, these new added burdens by the e.p.a. coming in will make those refineries lose their jobs. the administration has done a good job by trying to close down the oil industry in the gulf of mexico by not lifting the permitting request and now in contrary to this, will put those refineries and those workers at harm and will lose their jobs because of the new e.p.a. regulatory process that is not necessary. with that, i yield as much time as he wishes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. carter. mr. carter: i rise in support of this amendment and i disagree with my friend across the aisle. i don't believe it will be a job killer but will be a job protector. but it's a protector in the opportunity to have a job. you know, when we were debating in congress this very issue of cap and trade, back home where i live and all across the state of texas and in other parts of the country where i was privileged to travel, people were asking, please, are they really going to impose this crazy regulation upon us in the cost of our jobs and jack up energy and a lot of small businesses said i don't know what to do because this thing is loaming out there. if it becomes law, i have the feeling it's going to put me out of business because i can't afford the costs to keep it in operation. these are small business owners. those in the refinery industry looked at this thing and said what is this going to do to this, who are we going to lay off to meet these requirements? and the people of the united states and this congress basically said no to the president and no to the democratic majority of the last two years. and so the result was a sigh of relief not only in my hometown but in hometowns across america and said this doesn't make sense. they are trying to regulate the air we breathe and trying to -- it just shocks people as to what it might do to their costs. now i just came tonight to ask one question, a very simple question, a question that everybody in my district has been asking me. what is it about the word no that these folks don't understand? because they have been told no and i think it should remain no. we should support this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia. virginia virginia may i inquire as to how much time we have on either side left. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has six minutes remaining and the gentleman from texas has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. chairman, thank you. at this point, i would yield four minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from washington, one of the house's premier experts on the issue of pollution, mr. jay inslee. mr. inslee: permission to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. inslee: anyone who has seen a child grasping for breath due to a persistent asthma problem which most of us in america should be adamantly opposed to this amendment because it woman strip the legal right and obligation of uncle sam to protect our children, right to breathe. now i just heard something incredible from one of my republican colleagues. they said they were astounded to the precept that uncle sam has that responsibility. we had that responsibility for 40 years. under the guidance of teddy roosevelt and richard nixon, we got the clean air act 40 years ago and that has prevented 18 million cases of respiratory problems in our kids, 840,000 of severe asthma hospitalizations and 200,000 deaths and do you know what the republican party wants to do tonight, they want to repeal the clean air act when it comes to these gases and these are not be bine gases, methane, and many others. they are saying he, we aren't repealing the clean air act but making it illegal to enforce it. look, americans are opposed to repealing the clean air act and opposed to the republicans making it impossible for the e.p.a. to do their job by two to one margin and oppose todd it for several reasons. number one, republicans and democrats both believe we have a legal obligation to protect our kids from asthma. it's that simple and republicans and democrats share one common precept, we both like to breathe and that breathing is now in question for our kids and it's incredible to me to think the republicans were going to live our kids breathless on occasion, that is breathless in itself. number two, this really is an attack on science because the science is very clear on this. you quote from all the scientific research. dr. jay could be son found should a cause and effect -- i just want to quote, carbon dioxide emitted around the globe increases ozone in the united states. the science shows this is a problem. and we ought to embrace this as republicans and democrats instead of listening to the polluting agencies which they want to give license to put untold, indefinite amounts of these in the atmosphere. third reason americans know this republican effort to gut the clean air act is wrong. you know, they aren't attempting to revise a rule or modify a rule or come to us with some commonsense effort to make it work. they are eliminating the ability of the federal government to protect the air we breathe in total, 100% of the elimination of the e.p.a. to follow this rule. the supreme court ruled last year that this is a legal obligation. and to my republican colleagues said that was a five to four decision and we can ignore it. that was good enough for bush versus gore and ought to be good enough to follow the law of the land which is to enforce the clean air law for the benefit of our children. fourth reason americans are opposed to this effort to stop e.p.a. from doing its job. americans know today we are in a race for job creation and that race is for china -- i ask for another 20 seconds. mr. moran: i grant the gentleman another minute. mr. inslee: the fact of the matter is americans are in a race for job creation and that is the race with china to find out who is going to sell the product and who is going to have the jobs and electric cars and solar panels and wind turbines and efficiency and electric charging stations and new efficiencies to make our homes and businesses run more efficiently. and tonight, the chinese are laughing at us that the republicans would come here and take the pedal off the metal which drive these new energy sources. these are the jobs of the future. if we are going to have these jobs of the future, we are going to have to move off of accepting this pollution and have to get in this global game and if we get in, we are going to win. we are the country that went to the moon and we are the country with the innovative talent and business spirit and business people that can grow these nonpolluting industries but not if the republicans get their way. let's reject this plaud -- flawed attempt. mr. moran: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, who knows as much about the clean energy act as anybody. . the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: let me pound out c o-2 is not a pollutant under the classical definition of the clean air act. i'm creating co-2 as i speak. the gentleman from washington who was just speaking, as he spoke created co-2. if you have a carbonated beverage, the reason it bubbles and is called carbonated is because of co-2. greenhouse gases are necessary to human life. they're what keeps the planet warm. it's what traps heat so that we have an atmosphere we can exist in. there is not a definition of exposure, a health exposure to co-2. the theory that co-2 is harmful is based on a theory that the amount of greenhouse gases, specifically co-2 in the upper atmosphere, as it increases so many parts per billion somehow affects the ability of the earth to accumulate or dispense heat. it is a theory. there is nobody in this country or anywhere in the world who has been harmed because of man made co-2. you cannot point to cases of co-2 poisoning. so when my friends that oppose this amendment talk about carbon pollution, they are using a definition that is very loose and nebulous. second point, there is no question that the clean air act as passed and as amended in 1990 did not include co-2 as a criteria pluseant. -- pollutant. because of a case massachusetts versus the e.p.a., the supreme court ruled, my friend from washington was correct, 5-4, that the e.p.a. could make a decision to regular late co-2, could, not should, not must, but could. the bush administration began a process to analyze that decision. the obama administration came in and with the first 90 days issued an endangerment finding not based on independent analysis, based more on press releases as far as i can say that said yes, by golly, co-2 was a pollutant and they can regulate it and have since been truge to -- trying to shoehorn the regulation into the tenants of the clean air act. the amendments myself and mr. poe promulgated says let's take a time-out on co-2 regulation the next seven months and actually define what the greenhouse gases are we want to look at, and let's restrict the analysis to stationary sources on the regulations that are implemented after january of 2011. there is no question that if you regulate the clean air act -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield to the gentleman another 20 seconds. mr. barton: it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and destroy jobs without any real economic analysis to show it is a harm. i support the oppose-carter-barton amendment and hope the entire house will and thank the gentleman for yielding the time. >> i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. actually, a couple points i would share with the chairman of the energy and commerce -- the gentleman who had been the ranking member and now a senior member of the energy and commerce committee, the committee could pass legislation if they chose, i don't think this is the correct vehicle, a continuing resolution on funding activities to be making law with regard -- the supreme court court said if you can show there is an adverse health effect, then e.p.a. is required by law to address that. that's what e.p.a. is trying to do. that's what this amendment would prevent e.p.a. from doing. it is not theory. climate change is fact. it is real. and future generations will look back upon this generation and wonder how could our parents and grandparents have been so unmindful of the health effects that our families are experiencing. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: may i have 30 seconds to conclude my thought? >> i ask unanimous consent -- the chair: the gentleman asked unanimous consent to extend you 30 seconds. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: that's certainly fair. i thank the gentleman. there is an ongoing discussion as to theory and fact. we are convinced the facts are there. they are science-driven facts. and in fact the melting of the polar ice cap has a direct effect upon the concentration of moisture in the atmosphere which is then causing the volatility, the extreme nature of the snowstorms, the flooding, even the droughts that we have been experiencing. and there's no question but that in the last decade we have had the warmest years on record. these are facts. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: this is not the vehicle where they should be debated at 1:00 a.m. in the morning. i just simply would urge we defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas has 45 second. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my understanding the committee is going to move a stand alone bill in the next few months on the very issue of co-2. this amendment is very simple. it prohibits the e.p.a. from overreaching and expanding its authority that congress, in my opinion, has not given it to do so. co-2, we all breathe co-2 climate changes but there's no evidence at all that it's manmade co-2 that causes the climate to change. the climate has been changing since -- well, for thousands and thousands of years. i urge my fellow members of this house to support this amendment to bring in the pressiveness of the e.p.a., states like texas already regulate the air through their state regulatory process, and i ask that we all support amendment 466 and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it the amendment is agreed to. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from texas, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i move the house do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman? the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution therein. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman on the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1 and has come to no resolution therein -- thereon. pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 128 a and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members of the house to the united states group of the nato parliamentary assembly. the clerk: mr. ross of arkansas, mr. chandler of kentucky, mr. scott of georgia, ms. schwartz are pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to 22 u.s. code 3003, note and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members of the house on commission on security and cooperation in europe. the clerk: mr. hastings of florida, ms. slaughter of new york, ms. mcentire of north carolina, mr. cohen of tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted, accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. today. hours debating an amendment to cut funding for planned parent hood. members vote on that and other amendments friday. members hope to finish tomorrow. speaking about ten minutes about the bill and his agenda. >> as part of our effort to liberate the economy from household spending, the house will look to cut spending by over $100 billion over the next fiscal year. >> i sent a statement to the president signed by 150 economists. hampering private job creation. discouraging private at investment. it has to stop. we'll continue to listen to the american people. we'll not just cut discretionary spending. in the spring, we'll see our bunl et we need to have an adult titlization let me tell you what, there is a problem, we are broke. the president's budget shows clearly he's committed to more stimulus spending than he began two years ago without any kind of commitment to cutting spending that got us into this mess are you ready to broker between these? >> i focus in on having the house complete its work on the continuing resolution. i'm hopeful the senate leaders and the white house are ready to get serious about cutting spending. what sdou expect that looks like? >> i don't know. the first step ought to be laying out the size of the problem. medicare, medicaid, social security. we have to layout the problem so the american people know how big a problem is this. then and only then should we begin to talk about an array of possible solutions. we'll begin to determine what is doable and what isn't. we'll end up where we always end up. doing nothing. i'm confident paul ryan will work with our budget to deal with the pressing issues. >> we'll see what the committee recommends. jo who th agents were stopped in mexico. always insisting that the border is not secure. i'm not sure of the specifics you are referring to but we remain sure of the security of our border. i don't want anyone to lose their job whether a federal am ploy y or not. common, we are broke. we have to make tough decisions we know we can't continue to fwar owe 40 cent foz every dollar the federal government spends. the house spoke. the house of representatives spoke this wasn't a legislative process that will continue. if we are serious about solving our deficit problem and debt problem, two things have to happen. we have to get our arms around spending and we have to have real economic growth. the more they pay on taxes, the less they have to invest in their business this is why getting our arms around spending will be the most important things we can do to create better jobs for our country >> will that be part of the budget? >> i would expect we see committees act on a wasteful mandatory spending cuts on the budget. >> he said any time the initiative was labeled with what obama discussed sthashgs right? >> i'm ready to start the conference, i think the american people are ready for the conference as well if the house and representative will be in agreement of the fourth. we'll do everything we can to cut spending >> house minority leader nancy pelosi criticized republicans. $280 million was restored for that program on wednesday with the passage of the amendment. she ponded to the possible government shut down. this is almost 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, it's my honor to be here with my colleagues as we welcome to special guests. >> i know the congressman is particular particularly excited. when we take the oath of office. do we have it down yet? is it voice activated. the republican spending bill will have resulted in 3,000 fewer police officers, officers on the beat in your neighborhood. 2300 few r firefighters nationwide. it's not just about the jobs. that's very important. it's about what those jobs do. they protect the american people. democrats are proud. this bill and so many other respects goes too far >> when you are firing teachers, you are increasing class size. my granddaughter said she'll have to change schools. i asked why. she said if teachers are fired, the classes will be bigger. my teacher is having a bad enough time managing the boys in a class this size. >> those could be the republican platform not only for today but for decades. they have done only what benefits the rich and at the expense of the police and firefighters. if the middle class hurts in the process. they say so be it. the american people and the democrats have a different message. show us the jobs. where are the jobs any other song you want to sing about it. continuing to measure every proposal put before us. does it create jobs? does it strengthen the middle class? does it strengthen the benefits. we must and will stay focussed on the top priorities of the american people. the creation of jobs, brother of our economy. with that, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman woman from ohio. a real spieder for jobs and our working families even before she came to the congress. >> thank you. i am extremely happy to be here today with our leader and he's brave men and woman who stand behind me. they are not statistics. they are heroes with families. the job that they do discerns our respect and support. the wreckless republican budget cuts treat them with a dangerous difference. democrats pushed back. our firefighters are not just numbers on the page to be cut. cuts to our firefighters have real consequences, not only for these brave men and women and families. the fire department in this attack. cutting these program is a dangerous move. also increasing the danger for citizens and businesses budgets may be thin. we must pick our priorities. keeping fire tighters on the job and safe must be a priority. i urge all of my colleagues to be smart and careful as they seek to cut. cuts have to make sense. bret enlisted in the united states marine corps. he was sworn into his dream job on may 15, 2007 and become a firefighter. he has a four year old daughter. he is our hero. we are happen can i to have bret brown. [applause] i am speaking to you today in uniform and employed as a direct result of that grant. on may 15, 2007, my life long dream became true. i was sworn in as a foyer fighter. from the second i graduated high school, every decision i made was to better my opportunity to obtain the job as a firefighter. upon getting hired, i realized this was much more. the steel city has seen better days. we have never really rebounded from ford motor company leaving our city. our poverty rate has risen all the way to 34%. revenues haven't met expenses in a long time. three years after being hired, i was laid off my job. i lost my dome and lost hope. after being laid off, i would go through the grieving process. i was mad. denial hit, sad inns hit. it was time to apply for unemployment and return turning in application for work. i laid awake at night worried about my fellow firefighters. he and his wife and three kids were struggling. i felt like i was to blame. time passed on and each city council meeting was more bad news. i lost hope and felt forgotten. i also knew my own hope was set to begin. i was still attending budget meetings. on a cold winter day, i received a call from a very excited fire chief. he told me ied a million reasons to be happy because lorain received the safer firefighter grant. i realized how lucky i was. we understand cuts must be made. let us cut with an scalple rather than an machete. we must work together now and into the future to keep the grant funded for the simple fact that it saves lives. i know from my military days, that can you not put a single dollar value on any human life. in closing, on this great day in our nation, i stand in front of you, a proud and thankful man. i have the safer grant to thank for. i thankful for every elected official that supports this grant. last but not least, let us further the grant now and into the future i thank you. may god bless america. >> we are all proud of you. we are here today for a very specific reason to celebrate what we consider to be a victory. i want to first say thank you for your service to your country and communities whether you be firefighter or police officer. you are either part of homeland security or you are not. you are in our eyes. talking about the security of our nation here. there isn't a town that hasn't been affected pay the recession. we all know that. some harder than others. some have had to layoff police officers and firefighters. these actions have consequences. the continuing resolution that propose cutting the cops program, fire act and safer act was lead by local departments and trained the folks that are on the staff cutting by over $800 million when you combine it. this would have lead to almost $4,000 cops and firefighters losing their jobs. bainer's response was, so be it. i know the speaker to some degree. i don't socialize with him. i don't think he feels any less deep about those that defend us everyday than i do. he has to understand what he is proposing may provide some empty victories you are asking human beings. we want to make smart cuts. there's a great number more than served in their towns councils over across america. we understand what needs to be done on the streets. if we didn't, we should have been there in the first place. we understand what work orders are and what are the limits of how many cops we should have and for our culture and how many firefighters we need. when you go below that in any state. in new jersey, the department of community affairs let's you know it. we don't accept business as usual. we don't accept so be it. our nation's first responders are both our first and last lines of defense. this is what we had in mind when we put the cop's programs together. when we put the fire act together in the year 2000, bipartisan support and legislation. we didn't say that after 9/11. i wonder why. yesterday on the floor we stood up to the cut. i am proud of those. democrats and republicans. everything made and smooth. we are taking resources there is no protected use for that. if you watched later that day, they called for a sloet. when we try to embarass each other, those victories are hallow also the cold and dark and slash will not create jobs think about consequences twice as many as the first two months of last year. the homeland security we talk about, my friends in back and front, i want to introduce you to the guy. camden and half of the police department. so be it. this is how things happen you people don't understand it. i don't according to the speaker. he understands it. the city of my home state. how long ago were you laid off? . these guys are tough guys, let me tell you i was laid off january 18. friday will make a month that 60 of my fellow firefighters were laid off. i want to thank congressman pass quell and the democrats that makes this possible. camden right now, this has got to be the worst time. all the democrats working so hard. you cannot put a price on people's lives. the cuts cannot be so harsh. thank you that you see to it. someone's lives by me getting my job back, i'll continue with public safety and to be able to save lives. thank you. [applause] the safety of our citizens. i serve on the homeland security committee. we call it home town security. you need firefighters and policemen to provide that security. it's a core mission. the other is to reduce our deficit. how do we do it. do we do it responsiblily or cut blindly? i think we ought to do it in a responsibly way. he had an opportunity to become a texas ranger. he said, no. i'm going to stay a lieutenant fight gnashings. he said, i know drugs an example of drugs that we need to prevent. we know what's happening across the river. the federal law enforcement officers and local law enforcement people we'll provide the core mission and safety to the individuals. this is why what bill did and the other folks making sure we protect the safer grants to make sure we make the cuts cutting out the policemen. this is a mart way to do it. thank you very much. god bless you for the work you do. thank you for sharing your personal story every time something like that happens, we are taken back and bou our heads in prayer we have to do that every single day they keep our country safe to awful you, thank you for being with us today. i spoke with the president who told me how proud he is of all of you and concerned he is of how we need to be concerned about our job. >> that was a top priority for us i do firmly support the sdrim nation. i would hope that instead of having ult mate yum and statements of i'm not going to do this or that, we would have a process going with an approach that talks about how we keep the government open. not how we intend to shut it down. we've seen this happen before. it is a failure. we've taken the leadership. the first thing we are going to do is shut down the government to the debtment of our people to our security and our country's future.