america. for the first time ever, we saw a process begun which is in fact creating a scenario where the majority is ignoring the minority and doing what the american people do not want. i do not believe the american people want us to continue down the road toward a dramatic increase in federal spending. people want to get the economy back on track, people want to make sure their jobs aren't lost, but they're really wondering whether or not the way to do that is to have a huge increase in federal spending. yet that's exactly what is happening and this rule is a perfect example of that. i was harshly criticized by members of the now majority when i had the privilege of chairing the house rules committee. but i will tell you the last time that i chaired the house rules committee there were

seven amendments to the legislative branch appropriations bill submitted to the rules committee. and i was pleased that i could make every single one of those in order. every single amendment that was submitted was made in order. and as has been pointed out, 20 amendments were submitted to the rules committee for the legislative branch appropriations bill, and only one amendment was made in order. and guess what, mr. speaker, not one single amendment was made in order that would do what the american people want us to do and that is to reduce the size, scope and reach of the federal government. a 16% increase, the level of spending under this legislative branch appropriations bill. and we all recognize the need for capitol police and staff and oversight of the executive branch, those are all critically important things. but our colleague from georgia, mr. broun, offered an amendment that would simply provide a .5% reduction, .5% reduction and

yet the majority chose not to make even that amendment made in order yes, there were larger proposals for cuts and we know there is a tendency on this bill, that's why we've had a bipartisan agreement that this is the one of the 12 appropriations bills that we do have a structured rule on. but to not with a 16% increase in the bill to not allow the house to work its will and have a chance for even a .5% reduction in that rate of growth, that's not what the american people want. that's not what the american people want. and so the death of deliberative democracy was the history that was made yesterday, mr. speaker, because this is in fact the first time that this kind of action has been taken. and unfortunately it has begun a pattern. it's begun a pattern. and as i listen to my friend from iowa, mr. king, refer to the fact that he was victimized

by the bipartisan leadership when we in fact had said to him that we wanted to come to a time agreement on consideration of appropriations bills. it is evidence that we can at the leadership level, maybe not every rank and file member, but the leadership can work together. that's why i'm happy to see my very good friend from wisconsin, the chair of the appropriations committee here, and i would ask my friend, the distinguish chair of the committee on appropriations, mr. obey, whether or not he believes we could in fact come to an agreement if we proceed with the appropriations process under an open rule. and i'd be happy to yield to the distinguish chair of the appropriations committee, mr. obey, if he would engage me on this. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. hastings: i can answer what he asked and i can tell him that i don't have time to yield.

we began in the rules committee with me asking the previous speaker whether or not his side had offered a time agreement. he looked at me as if i was talking about something that was foreign. what i knew at that time and what i've indicated -- i will not yield. mr. speaker, regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida controls the time. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. what i knew and what i believe the leadership knew on both sides of the aisle that for a protracted period of time the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee and the majority leader had been meeting with their counterparts in the minority with reference to time agreements. now our side here when that bill began its debate and the first question out of mr. obey's mouth to mr. lewis, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the first question out of his mouth was

whether or not they were going to be able to get a time agreement. and mr. lewis' reply was that he could not give that assurance. so for somebody to come down here and talk about whether or not the democrats tried to get a time agreement and then to spend time yesterday agreeing on nothing and accepting no more than foolishness on the house of representatives, whether it was history making or not, is just plain absurdity. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i will yield one minute to the distinguished ranking member from california. mr. dreier: i'd like to yield to my friend -- i'd like to yield to my friend from north carolina to say to him that

what i was proposing that bill before bill we begin with a process as has been done for the decades i have been privileged to serve here and make an attempt to work together to bring about some kind of agreement. no attempt was made to do that. the request was unprecedented that it was a sweeping request made at the beginning of the appropriations process before we had even come to the floor and started working on this. and i'd be happy to my friend to respond to that. mr. hastings: most assurededly, i'd ask that you and i look at the record when these proceedings conclude and i can assure you that what mr. obey asked mr. lewis was whether or not they could get a -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. having participated in this process in the past, dwrements are worked out, as mr. king said, between the two leaderships -- agreements are worked out, as mr. king said, between the two leaderships. and as we begin work on an appropriations bill and members are in fact offering dilltory amendments, there's an effort made at the leadership level to

bring about an agreement at that time. the notion of trying to impose that constraint before the process has even begun is wrong and it is unprecedented and it has been part of what has killed deliberative democracy under the leadership of this majority. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to point out that i have been told that when he was ranking member mr. obey would never agree to a time agreement before a consideration of a bill. now, mr. speaker, we're nearing the end of the time for debate on this rule. i think we've had some very important issues brought forward by my distinguished colleagues who have come to share this debate this morning. this is a bad rule because it does not allow for amendments to be offered on the floor for people to work their will here. i do want to correct a couple of things that were said

earlier this morning by my colleagues in terms of uninsured americans. i think we have to do this every single time it's brought up. my distinguished colleague from florida said this earlier. there are 47 million uninsured americans. there are not. despite those claims, and i'm quoting from crisis of the uninsured, 2008, by the national center for policy analysis. we have 12 million illegal aliens here. we have 14 million uninsured adults and children who are qualified for programs but have not enrolled. we have 18 million people who are uninsured who live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 who could afford it. we have 18 million who are uninsured but most of them are healthy and don't need it.

85% of u.s. residence are privately insured and enrolled in a government health program. therefore, 95% of u.s. residence have health coverage or access to it and the remaining 5% live in households earning less than $50,000 annually. that's about seven million people. i'm getting so tired of hearing these misstatements made all the time. it's day after day after day that we keep getting these figures put out that are wrong. but let's go back to this bill and to what's in this bill that we find really egregious. i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on the bill because we have in here $9 million for the open world leadership center trust fund. that's just one of the items that's in here that we don't need to be funding. it'd would be great to have

better relations with young people in other countries who come here, but the american people are hurting. the republicans are on the side of the american people who are hurting here. we want to slow down the spending. there's a statement that came out yesterday about the difficulty we're having in selling bonds and the amount that we're selling. we're going into debt greater and greater in this country, and yet the democrats seem to see no end to spending. all -- they can't spend the american people's money fast enough. there's money in here to do studies on demonstration projects to save energy. you know what, i look around this place every night. we can save lots of money on energy by just turning out the lights. the lights are left on all over the capitol, all over the complex. we don't need to spend millions

of dollars on studying what we can do to save energy. just use common sense and cut down on the use of the energy that we have here. we're going to be wasting a huge amount of money. yesterday, the treasury announced a record $104 billion worth of bond options for next week. part of its herculean efforts to finance a rescue of the world's largest economy. this was in the news today. it will exceed the previous record of $101 billion set in options that took place in the last week of april. we are spending our country more and more into debt. and why are we pushing things through? why are we not allow amendments? -- allowing amendments? because the chairman of the appropriations committee says we have to stick to his timetable. and yet since the beginning of may, what have we dealt with here? we've had over 101 suspension

bills, things like recognizing the winston-salem memorial library in fultson, missouri, as america's national churchill museum. really important work. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. ms. foxx: well, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: 13 3/4. mr. hastings: i do yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i've heard so much revisionist history put forward here, not the least of which just came from the distinguished colleague of mine from north carolina with reference to previous periods

having to deal with whether or not the minority requested timetable agreements. one of the things i have done being in the house of representatives is spending time on the floor of the house of representatives. and that isn't looking to cause any praise to be directed to me. it became over time a part of my responsibility that i assigned to myself to kind of know what was going on in this institution. during that same period of time when mr. obey was the ranking member of the appropriations committee, i have been on this floor when mr. obey has requested time agreements when a bill is in progress and have participated in the discussions regarding it when the majority said no. so to come here and say that you always allowed for time

agreements is just simply not the case. the other thing that is ignored is the fact that the majority and the minority meet with regularity. i'd rather suspect what's going on here with nobody having said a word to me about it there's been a little bit of a strategy by my friends on the other side to assure among other things that they will slow down the process and that we will not be able to get the business of the people done. the greatest evidence of that was the transformation of events that happened yesterday. now, another friend spoke, the gentleman from iowa, with reference to the rules committee being upstairs in a small place. that's where it was when i got here, that's where it is now and i suspect when he and i leave that's where it will be. but to suggest that the media somehow or another does not cover the rules committee evidently ignores the fact that everything that we say is

transcribed by these people that are reporters that we overwork and abuse well on into nights when we could have been about the business, saving taxpayers' money by letting them get about their business, and all the staff around here that this legislative branch bill is about, all of what we do is recorded. in addition to that, no repoer is refused to be there, and c-span often chooses to cover the rules committee dependent upon whether or not there is a matter of substance that allows -- that they would want to cover. my friends on the other side had 12 years of rule making. i served on the rules committee in the minority in that time. you didn't regulate financial services you didn't provide a sensible health care plan you didn't give our children what was needed. you said what you were going to

do is leave no child behind and you not only left children behind, in certain places you lost them and couldn't find them. our parks, our environment deteriorated, they were plundered and abused and used in a way that was beyond the pale. yet we come in here and talk about spending. what would you say to all the people that work in a bank that got saved? they are americans. what would you say to the people in the financial services and on wall street that found themselves employed? they're americans. what would you say to the automobile industry employees and their directors that have their limited jobs saved and too many gone because of mistakes made by government and industry, what would you say to those working people, they're americans. you're telling me that when we spend money, we're not spending that money in a way that's helping america. what do you say to your

communities like mine, that are finding themselves in the position of having to cut services with regularity and it usually starts with the poor and disabled, they're americans. somewhere along the line, i would ask you the question, what would you have this president, that's been in office now nearly five months, not do? would you have him not do health care? would you have him not do anything about climate change? would you have him not do anything about the fact that you didn't regulate the industries that needed to be regulated appropriately during the time you were in the majority? mr. speaker, the resolution that we are here on provides for consideration of the legislative branch appropriations. we've heard the measures and all will be able to see that this bill provides a pragmatic and fiscally responsible approach to funding this legislative branch. footnote right there, the fine young people that work with us, when i came here, i was permitted as every member to

have 18 full-time staffers. i haven't always had 18 full-time staffers, but from 1992 until now, it's been that many staffers with an increase in the work load. w some of y'all don't pay these young people well enough and you know it and you need to pay attention to that. if you do get an increase, give it to the children that work with you and you might have a better-run office. the funding provided in this legislation will help us do our jobs better, faster, and it increases funding for the congressional budget office that we continue to use rightly so, particularly the pay-goers need their analysis done. mr. speaker, i'll stop now by saying that this appropriations bill helps make the work of the legislative branch more accessible to people throughout our nation and the globe. i'm encouraged that through the bill, the appropriations committee has helped to ensure that all visitors touring this

capitol have equal and adequate access to this facility. with that in mind, i just urge my friends to remember that while they're making up their history, there are some of us that remember it well. i can assure you that the things that i've said can be documented from that record. i would hope that we would know that this bill honors our history and prepares us for the future. it invests in the preservation and protection of the capitol complex and makes more efficient, more accessible the opportunities for the people that we serve. with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded -- mr. hastings: i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the

previous question is move. members reminded that remarks should be directed to the chair not to others in the second person. those opposed, no -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. foxx: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. berman: i ask unanimous consent that it may be in order today for the speaker to entertain a motion that the house suspend the rules and

adopt house resolution 560. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? hearing none, it is so ordered. the gentleman from california -- the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the chair will postpone further proceedings today on on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to the resution h.res. 560. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 560, expressing support for all iranian citizens who emwrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr.

berman, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. berman. mr. berman: every day since iran's election, the streets of tehran have been filled with demonstrators and each day this past week, the numbers seem -- the number seems to be growing. even state-run media in iran has put the number of demonstrators in tehran at hundreds of thousands. one british newspaper reports that there were a million demonstrators in tehran yesterday. what do these demonstrators want? are they simply in favor of the candidate, or are they making a more profound statement about the iranian regime? nobody knows exactly. we do know one thing, though. the demonstrators feel their intelligence was insulted and

their dignity assaulted by the high handed man for the which the results of the june 12 election were handled. they want justice. this morning the supreme leader offered none. it is not for us to decide who should run iran, much less determine the real winner of the june 12 election. but we must reaffirm our strong belief that the iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation. the iranian regime is clearly embarrassed by the demonstrations and has not slunk from -- shrunk from using violence to stop them. at least eight demonstrators and quite lick like -- likely a number more have been killed

and hundreds have been injure the regime has tried to ban media coverage of the demonstrations. foreign journalists are consigned to their homes and offices. several have been expeled from the coverage. cell phone coverage is frequently blocked and the regime has interfered with the internet and taken down many opposition websites. we cannot stand silent in the face of this assault on human freedom and dignity. i repeat that we have no interest in interfering in iran's internal affairs. that era has ended. this resolution affirms the universality of individual rights awell as the importance of democratic and fair elections. beyond that, it simply expresses its solidarity with iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. i don't know how many of the

demonstrators fall into that category, but i do know that many of them do. this resolution also condemns the bloody suppression of freedom. it is not a judgment on who won the iranian elections. it is an acknowledgment that we cannot be re-main silent when cherished universal principles are under attack. mr. speaker, i want to just offer my appreciation to our ranking member and to the gentleman from indiana for working together on a resolution which puts the house of representatives on the side of the people of iran and with that, i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the foreign affairs committee, mr. berman, for working with us in a bipartisan manner, reaching out to our side to bring this timely resolution to the floor. i especially want to thank our republican conference chair and a great member of our foreign affairs committee, mr. pence, who authored this legislation and i rise in strong support of the fundamental, universal human rights and civil liberties to which the iranian people are entitled. for 30 years, these rights and freedoms have been thenied again and again by an -- denied again and again by an oppressive iranian regime which uses a sham process with candidates hand-picked by the ruling apparatus. there has been no election in iran for decades.

the candidates and winners were picked in advance by the regime. real reform, real democracy were never an option. this repressive regime relies on so-called elections to provide a veneer of legitimacy but that facade has been shattered by the protest taking place in iran this week. the brutal nature of the iranian regime is well documented. on tuesday, i had the honor of attending with secretary of state hillary clinton the release of the state department's annual trafficking in persons report, which again cite ide ran as a tyre 3 country, among -- as a tier 3 country among the worst as the country that does little, if anything, to prevent men, women, and children from being trafficked for sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude, slavery. likewise, as the state department's human rights report for 2008 noted, iran's poor human rights record

worsened and it continued to commit numerous serious abuses. the government severely limited citizens' right to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections. authorities hilled political prisoners and intensified a crackdown against women's rights reformers, ethnic minority rights activists, student activists, and religious minorities. it is a pattern for decades system of we must look beyond the past week, which was only the most recent demonstration of the regime's brutality and authoritarianism. but the iranian regime is not just a threat to its own people. we cannot afford to lose sight of the flet that it presents to our own national security interests and indeed to global peace and security. iran draws -- draws even closer to crossing the nuclear point of no return.

a admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said that iran likely has enriched enough uranium to make an atomic bomb. inspectors say they probably can achieve nuclear weapons breakout possibilities and that issues about possible military dimensions tie ran's nuclear program remain unresolved. yet iran is allowed to continue its nuclear pursuit virtually unchallenge. additionally, iran continues to develop chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles while arming and bankrolling violent islamic extremists worldwide. we must bear this in mind when we determine what is the appropriate response to the iranian regime's policies and actions. today, mr. speaker, we must focus on the hopes of the individual iranians who have been robbed of a better future r