supreme court there, how you are going to rule. would you have an open mind on the supreme court in evaluating that legal opposition, whether the rights should be considered fundamental and applicable to the states? >> like you, i understand how important the right to bear arms is too many americans. . .

>> weather in individual right applies to limit the federal government's right to regulate the possession of firearms. the court expressly, justice scalia in a footnote, identified that there was supreme court precedent that had said that that right is not incorporated against the states. what that term of incorporation means in the law is that that right does not apply to the states in its regulation of its relationship with its citizens. in supreme court, the right is not fundamental. it is a legal term, it is not talking about the importance of a right in a legal term, it is talking about is that right inc. against the states? when maloney came before the

second circuit, we read what the supreme court said, saw that it had not explicitly rejected its president on application to the state -- had not -- it follow that precedent because it is the job of the supreme court to change it. i am sorry, i did not mean to cut you off. you asked me whether i have an open mind on that question, absolutely. my decision on any case of this type would be to follow the precedent of the supreme court when it speaks directly on an issue. i would not prejudge any question that came before me if i was a justice on the supreme court. >> i just ask senator sessions, i wanted to ask one more question. it goes to the area of prosecution. you have heard appeals in over 800 criminal cases.

you have 90 percent of the convictions of violent crimes. at least 99% of the time at least one person agree with you. let me ask you about one case. the mayor of waterbury, connecticut. the victims was a your daughter and niece of a prostitute's -- the victim was a young daughter and niece of a prostitute. the young children were forced to engage in sexual acts. to contact information of a person who is 16 for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. you spoke on a unanimous panel in the second circuit. you upheld the conviction against a constitutional challenge that the federal criminal statutes exceeded

congress's power to the commerce clause. i mentioned that i appreciate your prohibiting illegal conduct. did you have any difficulty in reaching the conclusion that you did in this case? >> no, sir. >> thank you. i am glad you reached it. senator sessions. i appreciate senator sessions. >> welcome, it is good to have you and your family back. i hope we will have a good day today. i look forward to dialogue with you. i got to say that i liked your statement on the fidelity of the law yesterday and some of your comments this morning. i also have to say had you been saying that with clarity over the past decade, we would have a lot fewer problems today, because you have evidence, it is quite clear a philosophy of the

law that suggests that the judge's bench front and experiences can and should andy -- the judges past experience will judge their experience. and both a judge takes to be fair to every party, and the every day when they put on their road that is a symbol they are to put aside their prejudices. i would like to ask you a few things. i would just note it is not just one sentence that causes us difficulty, it is a body of thought over a number of years that causes us difficulties. i would suggest that the quotation he gave was not exactly right of the wise lataina comment he made. you said six different times "i

would hope that a wisw latina woman with more often than not reach a better conclusion." that is a matter i think we will talk about as we go forward. yesterday you said is simple fidelity to the law. the task of a judge is not to is law, it is to apply law. i agree with that, but you have previously said the court of appeals is where policy is made. he said in another occasion, the law that lawyer's practice and judges declared is not a definitive law that many would like to think exists. i guess i am asking today what do you really believe? do you believe there is no real law and judges do not make law,

or there is no real law and the court of appeals is where policy is made? discuss that with us. >> i believe my record of 17 years demonstrates fully that i do believe that judges must apply d law and not make the law. whether i have agreed with a party or not, in every case i have decided, i have done what the law requires. with respect to judges making policy, i assume that you were referring to a remark i made in a duke law student dialogue. that remark in context made very clear that i was not talking about the policy reflected in the law that congress makes.

that is the job of congress to decide what the policy should be for society. in that conversation with the students, i was focusing on what district court judges do and what circuit court judges do. i noted that district court judges find the facts and apply them to the individual case. when they do that, they are holding their finding. it does not bind anybody else. appellate judges, however, the established precedent. they decide what the law says in a particular situation. that precedent has policy ramifications because it barnes not just the litigants in that case, -- it binds all litigants in similar cases and ones that will be influenced by that precedent. if my speech is heard outside

the minute that youtube presents and in its full context, it is very clear that i was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent. i was never talking about appellate judges or courts making the policy that congress makes. >> let me say i don't think it is that clear. i look at that tape several times. i think a person could reasonably believe more than that, but yesterday you spoke about your thoughts to rendering opinions and said i seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of the justice system. i would agree, but you have previously said this, "i am willing to accept that we to judge must not deny differences

resulting from experiences and heritage, but attempt as the supreme court suggests continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." first i would like to note to you think there is any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision making? >> never their prejudice is, i was talking about the very important goal of the justice system -- never their prejud ices. what i was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what their -- what they are feeling as they are adjudicating a case and in short that that is not influencing the outcome. -- and insure they are not influencing the of come. we have to recognize our

feelings and and put them aside. -- not influencing the outcome. >> the statement was, "i willingly accept that we to judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage, but continuously to judge when those opinions and sympathies are appropriate." that is opposite of what you are saying, is it not? >> i don't believe so because i was saying because we have feelings and different experiences, we can be led to believe that our experiences are appropriate. we have to be open-minded to except that they may not be. and we have to judge always that we are not letting those things determine the outcome, but there are situations in which some

experiences are important in the process of changing because the law asks us to use those experiences. >> i understand that but let me just follow up that you say in your statement that you want to do what you can to increase the faith in the impartiality of our system, but isn't it true that this statement suggests that you accept that there may be sympathies and opinions that legitimately cannot influence the judge's decision? how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system? >> i think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they are impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result or their experiences are driving their results. >> i agree with that. i know one judge says he has a

feeling about the case and he tells his law clerks to watch me, i do not want my bias is to influence this decision which i have taken a oath to make sure is impartial. i am concerned what you're saying is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies and opinions may influence your decision making. >> as i have tried to explain, what i try to do is to insure that they are not. if i ignore them and believe that i am acting without looking at them and testing that i am not, and then i could unconsciously or otherwise be led to be doing the exact thing i don't want to do, which is to let something but the law command the result. >> yesterday you also said your

decisions have always been made to serve the larger interests of impartial justice. a good aspiration, but in the past you have repeatedly said this. i wonder whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all. i wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men or people of color, we do a disservice to both the law and society. aren't you saying there that you expect your background and heritage to influence your decision making? >> what i was speaking about in that speech was harkened back to what we were just talking about a few minutes ago. that is life experiences to influence us in good ways. that is why we seek the enrichment of our legal system from life experiences.

that can affect what we seek or how we feel, but that is not what drives a result. the impartiality is an understanding that the law is what commands the result. to the extent that we are asking the question, because most of my speech was an academic discussion about what should we be thinking about? what should we be considering in this process and excepting that life experiences could make a difference, but i was not encouraging the belief or attempting to encourage the belief that i thought that that should drive the result. >> judge, i think it is consistent in the comments i have quoted to you in your previous statements that you do believe your background will affect the results in cases. that is troubling me, so that is not impartiality.

don't you think that is not consistent with your statement that you believe your role as a judge is to serve the larger interests of impartial justice? >> no, sir. as i have indicated, my record shows that at no point have i ever let my personal views or sympathies to influence the outcome of a case. in every case where i have identified a sympathy, i have articulated and explained to the living why the law requires a different result. -- explained to me litigant why the law requires a different result. >> you said something similar to that yesterday, that in each case i have applied the law to the facts at hand. but you have repeatedly made this statement, i accept the proposition that a difference

there will be by the presence of women and people of color on a bench, and that my experiences affect the facts i choose to seek as a judge. first, that is troubling to me as a lawyer. when i present evidence, i expect the judge to see all the evidence. how is it appropriate for a judge ever to say that they will choose to see some facts and not others? >> it is not a question of choosing to see some facts or another. i did not intend to suggest that. in the wider context, what i believed i was saying was that our life experiences to permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others, but in the and you're absolutely right. that is why we have a public judge that are more than one

judge, because each of us will more easily see different perspectives argued by parties, but judges to consider all of the arguments of litigants i have. most of my opinions explain to parties why the law requires what it does. >> do you stand by your statement that my experiences affect the facts i choose to sea. >> know, i don't stand by the understanding of that statement -- no, i don't stand by the understanding of that statement. i do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging. they help you to understand and listen, but that the law requires a result. it will command you to the facts that are relevant to the disposition of the case. >> you made that statement in

individual speeches about seven times over a number of years. it is concerning me, so i would just say to you i believe in judge -- in one judges formulation. this was the context of your speech. you used her statement as sort of beginning of your discussion. you said she believes that a judge, no matter what their gender or background, should strive to reach the same conclusion. she believes that is possible. you argued that you don't think it is possible, maybe even in those cases. you deal with a famous quote of justice o'connor says a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman. you pushed back from that. you say you don't think that is

necessarily accurate. you doubt the ability to be objective in your analysis. how can you reconcile your speeches which repeatedly assert that impartiality is an aspiration which may not be possible and all or even mos taken twice which requires impartiality? >> my friend is here this afternoon. we are good friends. i believe that we both approach to judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts. i also was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. i knew that justice o'connor could not have meant that if judges reached different conclusions, that one of them

was not wise. that could not have been her meaning, because a reasonable judges disagree on legal conclusions in some cases. so i was trying to play on her words. my play fell flat. it was bad. because it left an impression that i believe that life experiences commanded a resulting case, but that is clearly not what i do as a judge. it is not what i intended. in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young latino students to believe that their life experiences added value to the service. >> i can see that as a layperson's approach to it, but as a judge who has taken this

oath i am very troubled that you have repeatedly over a decade or more made statements that consistently argues that this ideal and commitment, i believe every judge is committed to put aside their personal experiences and biases and make sure that that person before them gets a fair day in court. philosophy can impact your judging. i think it is much more likely to reach full flower if you sit on the supreme court. -- been a blow on a lower court where you are subject to review by your colleagues andy colleague -- than on a lower court where you are subject to review. let's look at the new haven firefighters case. in that case, the city of new haven told firefighters that

they would take an exam that would determine who would be eligible for promotion. the city spent a good deal of time and money on the exam to make a fair test of a person's ability to serve as a supervisory firemen, which has the awesome responsibility to send their firemen into a dangerous building that is on fire. they have a panel that did oral exams, it was not all written, consisting of one hispanic and one african-american and one white. according to the supreme court, this is what they held. the new haven officials were careful to ensure broad racial participation in the design of the test. the process was open and fair. there was no genuine dispute that the examinations were job-

related and consistent with business purposes, but after the city saw the results of the exam it threw out those results because "not enough of one group did well enough on the tasked." the supreme court then found that the city rejected the test. -- one group did not do well enough on the test. after the tests were completed, the wrong racial results became the -- the raw racial results became the rationale for the city's refusal to certify the results. so you have stated that your background affects the fax you choose to sea. was the fact that the new haven firefighters had been subject to discrimination, one of the fax you chose not to say -- was that

one of the fax you chose not to see -- was that one of the facts you chose to see? >> in a similar case -- i am sorry, it was not that judge. he saw the case in an identical way. neither judge -- i confused statements senator leahy and made with this case. in a very -- in a very similar case, a similar issue. a variety of different judges on the appellate court were looking at the court in -- looking at the case in light of the second circuit and determined that the city facing potential liability could choose not to certify the test if it believed an equally good test could be

made with a different impact on the affected groups. the supreme court, as is its prerogative in looking at a challenge, established a new consideration or a different standard for the city to apply. that is was there substantial evidence that they would be held liable? that was a new consideration. our panel did not look at that issue that way because it was not argued to us in the case before us and because the case before us was based on existing precedents. so it is a different test. >> judge, apparently there was unease within your panel. i was really disappointed and i think a lot of people have been, that the opinion was so short. it did not discuss the serious

legal issues that the case raised. i believe that is legitimate criticism of what you did, but it appears, according to a respected legal writer, that it appears that one judge was concerned about the outcome of the case and was not aware of it because it was an unpublished opinion. it began to raise the question of whether a rehearing should be granted. you say you are bound by the superior authority, but when the question of rehearing that second circuit a 40 that you say covered the case -- that use a cover the case, that was up for debate. the circuit voted and you voted not to reconsider the prior case. you voted to stay with the

decision of the circuit. your vote was the key vote. had you voted with the other judge, of port rican ancestry, had you voted with him -- of puerto rican ancestry. you must have agreed with it and agreed with the opinions, and stayed with it until it was reversed by the court. let me just mention this -- >> is that a question? >> that was in response to some of what you said, because you misrepresented factually how the posture of the case. >> i obviously will disagree with that, but we will have a chance to vote on this issue. >> in 1997 when you came before the senate i was a new senator, i asked you in a suit challenging a government racial

preference, will you follow the supreme court decision and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny? in other words, i asked you would you follow the supreme court's binding decision in this one case. they upheld that all governmental discrimination, including affirmative action programs that discriminate by race, must face strict scrutiny in the courts. this is not a light thing to do. when one race is favored over the other, you must have a really good reason for it. after this case, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. you said the case correctly

determined that the same level of effort scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications. -- the same level of strict scrutiny. that was your answer and it deals with government being the city of new haven. he made a commitment to follow this case. -- you made a commitment to follow this case. where the words equal protection and strict scrutiny missing from any of your panel's discussion of this decision? >> because those cases were not what was at issue in this decision. in fact, those cases were not what decided the supreme court's decision. the supreme court parties were not arguing the level of scrutiny that would apply with respect to intentional

discrimination. the issue is a different one before our card and -- before our courts. that is what is a city to do when there is proof that its tests desperately impacts a particular group? the supreme court decided that what it did here was wrong. but it was on the basis that the city's choice was not based on a substantial basis in evidence to believe it would be held liable under the law. those are two different standards and two different questions a case would%. >> it was not that simple. this case was recognized as a big case. i noticed what kicked off one judge's concern was a lawyer saying it was the most important discrimination case that the circuit had seen in 20 years.

they were shocked. they got a one paragraph decision and signed back on the case. the judge raised this issue within the circuit and asked for a rehearing. your vote made the difference in not having a rehearing. he said -- >> we leave this hearing as the house is meeting. you can continue watching the hearing on3 on. -- you can continue watching the hearing on c-span3. legislative work gets under way at noon. live coverage on the house on c- span. connelly, for five minutes. mr. connelly: the economic need for the american clean energy and security act. i proudly supported the energy bill's recent passage here in the house because i know that in addition to protecting our environment and providing for

greater national security it will also control spiraling energy costs and create american clean energy jobs. our friends on the other side has labeled the landmark legislation as a tax bill. they've seen cited a study proclaiming a precise sounding figure and that first their mistake perhaps could be forgiven. perhaps they simply didn't understand the study they cited. however, professor john riley of m.i.t., one sent a letter to john boehner saying the republican citation simply wasn't correct given the study's data. that letter was dated april 1. and yet our friends on the other side persist in using this inaccurate figure. madam speaker, i'm here to set the record straight. shall we talk about increasing energy prices? how about a $700 energy increase on every american household if we don't take action? this isn't a tax. this is the cost of doing

nothing. this is more than a $700 increase each year that is already -- has already occurred in this decade due to rising electricity and gasoline prices. of course, the cost could be much higher if we use last year's $4 a gallon cost during the summer. however, even using the current price of $2.59, the average yearly per capita increase in gasoline costs this decade has been more than $400 per household. excluding last year's $4 a gallon cost, the price per gallon has doubled from $1.26 in 2000 to $2.59 currently. since 2000, the price of electricity in the united states increased more than 38%, thereby pushing the average yearly household bill from $800 to $1,100 a year. we know we spend hundreds of billions of -- send hundreds of billions of dollars each year to foreign countries. we import 100 billion --

million barrels every day. $200 billion we could use to create american energy jobs. rather than sending this overseas that views us as an enemy or a meal ticket. we know that the american recovery and reinvestment act would eliminate jobs. perhaps they don't realize the current system of energy generation is already costing us thousands of jobs. for instance, the u.s. department of labor states that employment in the mining industry will decline every year through at least 2014. this isn't recession related. this simply an industry in decline if we do nothing more americans will lose jobs. we know the cost of doing nothing, continuing increases in energy costs, continuing job losses cost american families can no longer afford. however, with the american clean energy and security act we will create jobs, green jobs

here in america. the act will create incentives for american companies to innovate and to, pand their investment in alternative source -- expand their investment in alternative sources of energy. we know we can do this if we make the investment. from 2000 to 2008, for example, the wind power industry alone before passage of this bill created 35,000 jobs. of course, wind energy still makes up only a small percentage of electricity generation, less than 1%. imagine if we could make a concerted effort for energy american. can he could expand those gains and create hundreds of thousands of american clean energy jobs. madam speaker, the business community understands the importance of energy reform. companies like nike, starbucks, the gap, sun microsystems have formed the business for climate energy policy coalition to advocate for these clean energy

jobs and for this bill. these businesses support reducing greenhouse gas pollution, establishing a renewable energy standard and investing in job creation. they know that if we do nothing the cost associated with continued global warming will reach $271 billion by 2025. america has already been the land of innovation, however, as we've recently seen in the automotive industry, we cast rest on past laurels. there are costs to doing nothing. i commend my colleagues in the house for support of this bill. together we've made a statement that will address rising energy costs. we will wean america off its dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and we will work to avoid the catastrophic costs of global warming and create american jobs. i hope the senate will act swiftly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker.

my colleague from virginia promises jobs from the cap and tax bill. if you believe that, then you probably believe the democrats when they promised that the stimulus bill would provide jobs. the obama administration and congressional democrats promised that their $1 trillion stimulus would create jobs immediately and unemployment would not rise above 8%. but since the stimulus bill passed, 1.96 millions -- million americans have lost their job. i expect we will do more than that under the cap and tax bill. let me fill you in on the economic statistics that we have right now. at the beginning of july our national debt clocked in at $11.5 trillion. if you don't have a calculator in hand, that's $37,609.23 for every man, woman and child in america. but the real news is not simply

that the national debt is more than $11.5 trillion. the real news is the treasury department announced yesterday that for the first time the federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion, the first time in our history. to clarify, the deficit is different than the debt in the sense that the deficit generally refers to the amount of overspending in a given year. that means so far in fiscal year 2009 the federal government has spent $1 trillion more than it's collected in taxes. rather than trim our budget and make due with less like the rest of america, congress has decided to up the ante and will not just maintain current government spending levels but will significantly increase spending in the coming year. this kind of runaway spending is part of why we're hearing reports that our $1 trillion deficit is just the beginning of the story. in fact, some experts are

predicting that the deficit could reach $2 trillion this fall. what do these record deficits mean for americans? massive deficits can only continue for so long. i think i've heard all stories of how crushing debt has forced some businesses or families into bankruptcy. at some point the pile of cards is coming down, either as the interest rates on the debt spirals up higher or as those who lend to america run out of cash to loan or simply out of patience for uncle sam's spend thrift ways. millions are out of work and hundreds of thousands lose their jobs each month. the government spent $18 billion in june just to pay the interest on the national debt which works out to $600 million a day in interest payments . eventually american families are going to have to foot this bill. american people know we cannot borrow and spend our way back to a growing economy. as a record breaking $1 trillion deficit causes the national debt to increase at

historic pace, congress will either have to slash spending in unprecedented ways or raise taxes. and judging by how the current democrat majority in congress has proceeded thus far, i'm very skeptical about any meaningful spending cuts. you can probably guess what that means. let's just say that the tax hike forecast doesn't look good for the american people. democrats are on the side of more government and more taxes. republicans are on the side of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been informed the house that the senate passed an act cited as the enhances small business research and innovation act of 2009 in which the concurrence

of the house has requested. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. one issue that is too often out of sight and out of mind is the quality and the condition of our drinking water and waste waugh pipes under the -- wastewater pipes under the ground. just six months ago we watched in shock as people were airlifted from people caught in a vehicle on river road just outside of washington, d.c., because of the failure of a single croded pipe installed over -- can roded pipe installed over 40 years ago. in fact, 40,000 miles of pipe and sewer pipe are over 80 years of age. this morning there was a water main break that closed 23rd straight near the george washington hospital. the e.p.a. estimates that

american communities suffered more than 240,000 water main breaks last year. combined with overflowing combined sewer systems causing contamination, property damage, disruption in water supply and often massive traffic jams. the american society of civil engineers estimates an average of $6 billion -- six billion of gallons of water is lost to leakage, another to fill over 9,000 olympic-sized swimming pools. the engineers have given our nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a d-minus grade in their most recent report. sadly a grade that was not improved over the report from five years ago. the house of representatives recognizes the need to upgrade water infrastructure earlier this year passing h.r. 1262,

the water quality investment act, which would update and re-authorize clean water state revolving loan funds. but they simply don't have enough money. the e.p.a.'s most recent estimate is over $500 billion gap between current investment and projected needs over the next 20 years. surface and air transportation infrastructure while facing their own challenges at least have a dedicated source of funding. water does not. in the spring of 2005, the famous republican polester frank luntz released a poll that showed americans would support a sustainable dedicated source of water funding for infrastructure. he found the public sees clean water as an even higher priority than investments made in more high-profile areas of transportation and airways.

71% prioritized water above other infrastructure. it's time to stop talking about it and do something, creating a dedicated firewall trust fund for water infrastructure. this afternoon, i will introduce legislation to create this trust fund financed by a number of mechanisms that are simple, equityible and adequate for $10 billion a year. the water protection and reinvestment act will establish a trust fund to finance clean water and drinking water infrastructure, most of the money will go through the state revolving funds for sewage and drinking water. the financing mechanisms in this act will include a fee based on water-based bev rang radges, products that are disposed of in wastewater, pharmaceutical products and corporate profits. these fees would be assessed at the manufacture al level so they

will be easy to administer and will have a minimum impact on the consumer. they would be at a level that's so low that it would not place the entire burden on any one industry or group of consumers. with a mix of funding, everyone will contribute to a solution that everyone will benefit from. i'm pleased that the legislation already has a diverse support of stakeholders from the a.g.c., american rivers, the national association of clean water agencies, rural community assistance partnerships, a wide range of bipartisan original co-sponsors, including congressman dicks, congressman latourette, congressman simpson, congressman petri, representing a base of support from thoughtful, bipartisan legislators. while the funding question is always complicated, the public is with us. in january of this year, the pollster released a new poll.

remember, he is the famous republican pollster. finding that a nearly unanimous 94% of americans are concerned about the state of our nation's infrastructure. he found that this concern cuts across all regions of the country, urban, rural, suburban. he found that 84% of the public wants the federal government to spend more money to improve infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: the public is supportive. my hope is that my colleagues will join me in supporting a solution that will make all of our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. childers, for five minutes. mr. childers: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor the life of an american hero, a mississippi hero, master sergeant steve hood of the mississippi highway patrol. on may 29 of this year, master sergeant hood of guntown,

mississippi, died in the line of duty, the first in a decade. a 28-year veteran state trooper, he passed before his time. master sergeant hood started his career as a state trooper in 1982 after graduating from the mississippi highway patrol academy. it was clear when i attended his funeral last month that he was a man who brought comfort and friendship to all he met. along with his dedicated service to the people of mississippi, family and friends will remember him as a christian who was actively involved in the church and one who enjoyed singing. just last year master sergeant hood returned to duty after recovering from a near fatal tractor accident that reaffirmed and strengthed his faith. master sergeant hood was a devoted husband to his wife, i will is a, a loving father to his -- lisa, a loving father to his children and a loyal colleague of his fellow troopers. please join me today in remembering the life of master

sergeant steve hood and the mourning of his death. madam speaker, i thank my colleagues for honoring this mississippi and this american hero, master sergeant steve hood, and his family at this time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, for five minutes. mr. pence: thank you, madam speaker. i would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, please. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: thank you, speaker. you know, the american people love a fair fight and so do i. especially where the issues of the day are being debated. in a free market, though, fairness should always be determined based upon equality of opportunity, not equality of results. everyone should in effect have a chance to make their case. that's why it's so disturbing to many of us that some of the leading voices in congress have been calling for congress to enforce an idea of fairness on the airwaves of america in the

form of restoring the so-called fairness doctrine. but our nation should always proceed with caution when some would achieve fairness by limiting the freedom of others. now, the american people cherish their freedom. it is a blood-bought right. there is totality of agreement on this floor about that. in fact, i believe that's why president ronald reagan repealed the so-called fairness doctrine after it had been in place for almost four decades back in 1987. the fairness doctrine actually regulated the content of radio for much of the last century. and limited the ability of radio stations to deal with controversial issues without needing a standard of equal time or balance or record keeping. as a result of that, as many of us old enough to remember will attest, talk radio, as we know it today, virtually did not exist before 1987. well, with some of the talk of

restoring the fairness doctrine to the law of the land, congressman walden and i have been working over the last two years to ensure broadcast freedom. we've authored the broadcast freedom act which is co-sponsored by every republican in the house of representatives and this week we'll bring to the floor a broadcaster freedom amendment as a part of the financial service appropriations bill. many may not know who are looking in, madam speaker, that the federal communications commission receives its entire budget through the financial services appropriations bill and we believe this is an -- tune time -- opportune time to use the power of this congress and the people in this congress on both sides of the aisle to advocate for the freedom of the airwaves of america by limiting the ability of the federal communications commission to bring back the so-called fairness doctrine. but first for the uninformed, the fairness doctrine is in

effect something of an orwellian and depression era federal communications commission rule that was devised back in 1949. as i mentioned, it required radio broadcasters to present both sides of an opinion when discussing controversial topics. it put unelected bureaucrats at the f.c.c. in charge of enforcements in determining which speech was legal and because of the lack of clarity in the ruling, broadcasters more often than not opted noncontroversial program in lieu of hours of paperwork, countless legal fees and a potential threat to their broadcast license. recognizing the chilleding effect that the regulation was having on broadcast freedom, the f.c.c. began to overturn its own ruling on the fairness doctrine in 1985. following that change in policy, president reagan's veto of attempts to reinstate it, the results have been dramatic. and think about it. before the fairness doctrine was repealed, there were some 125 talk radio stations in america. now there are more than 2,000.

and while names like limbaugh and hanity and other conservative giants are better known to many, the truth is that when you look at the totality of the talk radio marketplace, from the local level to the regional level to the national level, there's an extraordinary diversity of opinion. many progressive, moderate and liberal programs succeed extraordinarily well at the local level in many markets around the country. unfortunately in spite of this recent history and the breakout of broadcast freedom since 1987 there's been talk in the last several years about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the fairness doctrine. let me say from my heart, i believe it is dangerous to suggest that a government bureaucracy would be a competent asher to of free speech. as a former radio talk show host myself, i know personally what the fairness doctrine meant to radio back in the day and i know that it would ultimately muzzle what is the dynamic public

discussion that we call talk radio in america today. but let me be clear on this, i believe that the broadcaster freedom amendment that we'll bring this week, giving members of this body an opportunity to say no to the fairness doctrine, and to say no to a new iteration of it that takes the form of regulations under the rue brick of localism, i believe that that will be met by broad and bipartisan support. if memory serves, two years ago when i brought the pence amendment banning fairness doctrine prosecute from being implemented by the f.c.c., more than 305 members of congress voted for it, including 100 members of the democrat majority. so i urge support for the broadcasting freedom amendment, join us in embracing freedom on the airwaves of america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo, for five minutes.

ms. bordallo: madam speaker, the events of world war ii seem to be lost in translation, interrupted as -- interpreted as events that occurred, rather than events that affect. for many, the events of the past no longer shape our views of the future and for this reason, i come to the chamber this morning to speak about an important chapter in american history, a chapter that too few americans know. early this morning, congressman sablan and i were joined by the honorable david heys, departmentity secretary of the interior, major general donald goldhorn, former congressman ben bloss, and congressman joe wilson. and friends of guam in laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier in arlington. we honored the soldiers, the sailors, the marines, the coast guardmen and airmen, who participated in the battle in the liberation of guam and the northern marianas during world

war ii. our ceremony also honored the liberated, the indigenous people of guam, who remain steadfast in their loyalty to the united states during the war and who endured enemy occupation. tuesday, july 21, 2009, marks the 65th anniversary of the liberation of graham. guam was attacked by the imperial japanese forces on december 8, 1941, at the same time that pearl harbor, hawaii, was attacked. the different dates owing to the international date line. guam was subsequently invaded by the imperial japanese forces on december 10, 1941, and occupied until liberation on july 21, 1944. the story of the people of guam and the campaign to liberate them from occupation is an american story of courage and sacrifice. it is an important part of american history and one of

pride in determining -- and determination in face of overwhelming obstacles, barriers constructed by the japanese war machine in the form of forced labor, forced marches, internment and public executions. and a true test of loyalty, a test that had not been asked but for a very few civilian communities under the american flag in the 20th century. so i come to the floor today to bring honor to the indigenous people who were occupied and to the servicemen who liberated them. the liberation of guam from enemy occupation during world war ii marked a pivotal point in guam's history and was a key battle for the allied forces in ending the war in the pacific. the liberation of guam by the united states armed forces there the imperial japanese empire allowed for the first time the installation of airbases that would house land-based aerial bombers, putting them in reach of the main island of japan. the air offenses launched from

the marianas islands were effective in sub duing the japanese war effort, bringing the war to an end and saving the lives of many. prior to the japanese invasion, guam armed forces consisted of 153 marines, 271 u.s. navy personnel, 134 civilian construction workers and 247 camorro members of the guard. it protects the community and guam during the invasion. during the occupation, the imperial japanese forces attempted to turn the chamorro people against the united states, but the chamorro people remained steadfastly loyal to the united states through the 32-month occupation. on the eve of the american landings on the island in 1944, all 22,000 chamorro inhabitants of guam were forced to march to locations to be interned in

concentration camps to maintain control of the population in fear of an uprising. this is a true american courage and true american story. the chamorro people of guam were loyal americans at the time and it was the first time that a foreign power invaded u.s. soil since the war of 1812. despite fear of their captors and their will, the chamorro people remain steadfast in their loyalty and were brave in providing aid to the american soldiers hiding from the enemy capture. these acts of courage were punishable by death. some experienced horrific events, massacres where japanese soldiers hearded families into caves and threw hand grenades and delivered small armed fire until dozens lay dead. their loyalty put to the extreme test of sacrifice. so, as we approach liberation day next week on guam, we

remember our elders who lived through the occupation and also the several thousand members of the u.s. armed forces who gave their lives while defending and liberating guam. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

treasury department. live coverage when the house returns at noon eastern here on c-span. supreme court nominee sonya sotomayor is facing her second day of senate confirmations today. today members are questioning the federal judge about her qualifications and judicial beliefs. >> how is c span funded? >> taxpayer dollars. >> private donations? >> public support. >> consumer funded i guess? >> private contributions? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. a private business initiative. no government mandate. no government money.

>> the senate health committee continuing to go through health care legislation today. this is day 12 of their mark up of the bill. it's one of several committees reviewing the legislation line by line and making changes. eventually all changes will be merged. live coverage now of the senate health committee. we join it in progress. >> the effect by a year doing this. also a little bit concerned by the language on page two. i understand these are going to be doctors and other professionals that are going to be on this commission. where it says the clinical appropriateness and benefits covered. that sounds a little bit like rationing? that always concerns me. i recognize that it has to go through the secretary. but aren't we delaying by a year putting into effect this commission? >> senator, if i could respond

to that. directly to the guidance on page two, commissions responsibility to hold public hearings not less than three times to take testimony and receive such evidence as commission considers adviseable to carry out this title. just note the last thing they would want to do is have a protracted time line that would make their advice relevant because the secretary already made a decision, if you will. so those, that modest amount of public input, a minimum of three public meetings, can be taken under a time line in close coordination with the secretary to try to get that input onto the secretary's desk, to make it useful. >> mr. chairman, further question? first of all, i like the idea of open transparency in that people can have input. what i don't like is the delay of a year, as stated by the senator. you spoke eloquently about the

people in oregon, and how, their waiting for coverage. they really do think if we pass a bill, that by the time the president gets to the state of the union, we're going to be ready to go. so, i'm concerned about that. the second thing i'm concerned about is that the membership is appointed by the controler general. what is the controler general know about appointing people to a commission to define their health benefits? they have a totally different function in our society. >> thank you, senator. first, let me again address the time line. i absolutely agree with you that there should be no delay from this type of input. clearly, the secretary is going to have to seek advice that can either occur in a nonpublic forum, or that can occur in a public forum. i think it's overwhelm fair to

the public that we have in a public opportunity. those three meetings could be held in a course in three different locations around the nation. or, on whatever time line is appropriate to get that input, diguest it and pass it onto the secretary. in regard to your question about the individual who appointes the members, if you would like, i would be happy to take a break from this amendment, find out the answer to that question and bring it back to you. >> i think we agree on the policy of an open transparent discussion. but i would really want to limit the time in terms of, in short, proper functioning of the commission. so it's not so short that we really get on with it. the second thing is to see who would be the appropriate person to appoint. i'm not real excited about the

controler general in this appointment. >> mr. chairman? >> i think that's a very good point. because that would be the g.a.o. appointing this board. i'm wondering how quickly they can make recommendations for individuals to serve on the board. as far as them holding three quick hearings and being done, my experience with boards and commissions is that if you allot them one year, it will take them a year and a half. so, their funding will run out in a year. it will take a while to get to a report. then g.a.o. to get a report and get it approved. transparency is great, but transparency will take time. >> can i ask a question? i understand, since this bill's going to take about five years to be implemented anyway, that goes into effect right after the passage of the bill, so it will

be done concurrently. so it's not like we'll have to wait until the bill is implemented and then another year. it seems to me that this is done right away, if i'm not mistaken. i don't understand what the problem is, won't be any delay in implementing the bill? unless i'm wrong. i think it would run concurrently. i'm sorry, i have to recognize senator roberts, then senator hagen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's on this amendment. i do have a short statement and a couple of amendments that we could consider and block and deal with in a speedy fashion. that's up to you, sir. seems to me that amendment adds back into the federal health board that the chairman took out prior to the mark up, it's a little bit like med pack. from a process standpoint, i'm

concerned that the provision was taken out. we had some amendments that we would have liked to offer on it. and now we're trying to basically add it back in. and, i'm concerned that a federal health board will set very high minimum benefit levels, which would result in raising premiums for everybody. and then on the flip side, and i'm concerned that the federal health board will become a rationing board. i know that's the scare word, but i'll use it anywhere. a rationing board, similar to the problems that we have experienced with c.m.s., and medicare already. as well as the obvious example of nice in the united kingdom. let me ask a question of the senator, and or council. could this board require that

private plan, the private plans pay providers certain medicare rates, or medicaid rates or something lower? >> no, it could not. it's charged only with making reck men recommendations on the benefits which would be recommendations to the limit tations of 3103, a 2 and a 3. >> could they deny coverage based on the c. r.? >> the short answer is that no it cannot. only a function to provide recommendations to take public input and to provide recommendations to the secretary. and to just enhance the discussion, the point raised by senator from maryland, the

response is that this was modeled after the process of appointing members to med pack and to the medicare part d advisory board. althose are done by the comptroller general. how we might have a better choice. >> i'm going to ask the question that probably nobody wants to hear. but could they cover abortion services? >> mr. chair, there is nothing in this bill that focuses on any particular direction. their responsibility is to take input from the public, take input from groups and individuals and package recommendations.

they could come in any sector of the health care world. it's not targeted at any particular sector. >> let me ask "other question, because 17 members, on this commission. that's a pretty big commegs, although you've listed a whole series of things that they would hopefully provide some expertise with regard to virtually everything. why did you pick 17? and second, why the comptroller general? i don't understand that. >> the reason for 17 members is that since health care involves a sixth of our economy, 18% of our economy, it's an incredibly complex world with many, many view points, actors, perspectives, advocates, so forth. so 17 is a fairly modest number

to try to capture the complexity of that world and get those voices, that set of wisdom if you will, from different sectors into the conversation. for reasons i'm not able to speak to, he has been assigned for a number of health care appointments in our system. those are made by the controller general, and the med pack board is appointed by the controller general. so there is at least an expertise set up in understanding the complexity of our health system and trying to find appropriate people to reflect that complexity. >> what happens if you have a split decision here with 17 members? i'm all for, when people make recommendations on, i think three is a good number.

but that's just having dealt with so many commissions. but i respect the senator's opinion. but again, i think this basically puts back in the federal health board that the chairman took out, and it wouldn't -- i think it would be a better situation, we had a little time if we wanted to offer amendments that we could. i thank him for his answers. and i yield. >> senator hagen? >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. i'm not familiar with what the federal health board was, but i do have concerns and questions about the controller general. about an executive director being appointed, about the appointments taking place within 40 days after the enactment of the law. the advisory status of it. and then having to complete the work within a year, and i just think a lot of this has a lot

from a bureaucratic standpoint actually getting this together from an advisory standpoint. i guess my question is that it seems like this should come under the secretary of health and human services, and would certainly be wanting to do this kind of detailed study and information. i guess right now, i think it would be better left to have it done just within the department. >> i think the senator from north carolina that suggestion. my belief is that since the recommendations were to go to the secretary the goal was to have the members not appointed by the secretary, to simply reflect where the secretary's thoughts might be to begin with. because, i think it's much more valuable to have a group that isn't already the circle you most carefully funk, or most

commonly function within. there's some value in having some distance. quite frankly for me, i am happy to go with sense of the committee and have this appointed by the secretary. i think the main point is open the process for public input. this is what it boils down to. a timely opportunity for a public process input, rather than the input just happening behind closed doors. >> will the senator yield? will the senator yield? i think you have the time. >> yes, yes. >> have you asked the secretary about her opinion on this, if in fact she were doing the appointment or the comtroller general. >> you talking to me? >> yes, ma'am, no, well -- i asked you to yield so i get time to ask him a question. >> i'm sorry, i yield.

>> i apologize. >> thank you senator, i have not spoken to the secretary about this. >> mr. chairman, i think it would be a pretty good idea that we get kathleen either on board or off borte or whatever before we proceed with this amendment. if she's going to make these appointments and have 17 people amend things. >> well, first of all, as i understand it, is it the g.a.o. makes the appointments or the secretary? >> the comptroller general makes the appointments. quite frankly i don't see this as a critical part. the point is to create a public commission that will take public testimony and share those insights at the back of the secretary. >> the lay of the land, let me thank senator harken for filling in this morning. is it the senator's intention to

go ahead or with draw? i was unclear as to where we are? >> mr. chair, i would be happy to take a break from the amendment if you will. i don't want to with draw, but i want to address the question that others have asked about the most appropriate person to appoint the members of the commission. >> then why don't we lay this aside and allow that conversation to go forward. and i understand senator roberts had a couple of amendments. but i saw him walk out. is he coming right back in? ok. well, i'm going to encourage that conversation to happen. then we'll come back to this when we may have reached a satisfactory plan. mike, do you have something we can bring up in the meantime while we're waiting for pat to come? lisa, do you have something you want to bring up? >> i do. thank you mr. chairman. last week when we had the c.b.o. director before the committee, i

asked director what the reasonning was for using a 25 employee size when we were talking about the employer mandate. and we had discussion about that. i have an amendment that i would like to bring up now. this is amendment 213 as modified. >> 213, the clerk? they have that amendment? 213? get that around to people. >> when we were -- when i brought this up with the director, i asked him why are we using the number 25, when we dealt with mental health pairity. the number that we used for small, in that legislation, was 50. at the time we had that conversation, i believe it was you, senator dodd, that we use 25 employees or less because that was defined as a small business.

when we went back to the s.b.a., and the definition that s.b.a. uses is 500 employees. so, if the s.p.a. is going to consider 500 employees of a small business, then what we're doing in this legislation is we are manu ginobli dating on the smallest of the small businesses. by essentially sticking them with an additional $750 tax penalty if they don't provide full time health insurance to their full time employees. and my concern with this is that i think kwlure going to have a push, you're going to have an incentive for employers to let go of some of those employees, so they can come down under that threshold number. they would likely not hire anyone over the threshold number, likely outsource their works so they don't have to pay the additional taxes. the real concern is that this legislation would

unintentionally create greater unemployment by what it's seeking to do. and, and essentially, you've got a tax on, again, the smallest of the small businesses. last weekend, and i know that you're very involved with this with your leadership on the banking community. but, over the weekend, the president reports were all over the place about what the administration is doing to kind of key in on providing support for small businesses, across the country, in these very difficult economic times. and, the administration, as i understand is looking at an initiative now that would take some of those tarp moneys that we had authorized for the banking system, and making the tarp funds available for millions of small businesses. whether you agree or disagree as to whether or not that's the way to go, it was very clear that

the concern from the administration is, we've got to do something to help small businesses. they say that 60%-80% of all workers are part of a small businesses, and they are key to any economic recovery that we have. i clearly agree with the administration on this. certainly agree that these small businesses are the back bones of our community. in alaska, it's 96% of the businesses in my state are small businesses. if you just go state by state, and you poll whether it's new mexico, or maryland, we recognize that small businesses are really what's making this country move. so, i'm just very concerned about what we're doing with our policies here. on the one hand, we're saying, we'll offer the small businesses tarp money. in other words, we'll give you

this temporary bailout, this shot in the arm. recognizing that the tarp funds were never intended for small businesses. but we want to help them through this economic slump. but then, we're going to pass legislation that would impose a tax, again, on the smallest of the small businesses. the penalty that they could be facing is approximately $20,000. and this is a tax that goes, again, to the smallest of the small. if they have, for instance, 26 employees and they don't provide health insurance. so what my amendment would do is keep the language of this bill in sink with the language, as determined by the s.p.a., which states that a small business employer with 500 or less employees would be exempted from the mandate.

>> you want to exempt 500 or less? >> 500 or less. following the definition of the s.b.a. that defines a small business within this country for purposes of the small business administration. utilizing their definition, which is 500 employers or less. >> mr. chairman? >> first of all, i thank my colleague -- i'm sorry barbara, did you want to continue with that? >> i understand is s.b.a. definition, but exempting 500 or less would have a severe impact on the scoring of this bill. initially, i thought it was exempt, we exempt 25 or less, as you know senator -- >> correct. >> i thought you had a typo. i thought that you were going to go to 50. >> well, i was going for 50 in trying to understand, how are we

defining small businesses. because, as i said -- >> yeah, but now you're up to 500. >> what i did is what i went with the s.b.a. definition. i'm looking for some rational behind the number. from everything i can dell, we just kind of pick 25 out of the air. >> we've used it in the past. and you're absolutely correct. in fact, i was going back to the family medical leave act, which we started at 25, then we negotiated that up to 50. i've been operating under the assumption falsely. there was somewhere in that s.b.a. legislation that talked, a general matter, employers of 25 or less would qualify, i obviously misspoke. here's the problem, though, aside from the definitions you use. you end up with losing employer-based. we're trying to keep people in the employer-based system and obviously keep cost out. those two goals, we very much

agree on. how to keep cost down and keep people in their employer-based system. what they have told us in looking at the various proposals is the numbers of 25 or less, does both things. it keeps people in the employer based system and it brings down cost. so, i'm not going to argue with my friend and colleague from alaska about, you're absolutely correct. 80% i think of all jobs in country are in small business. they are the engine of economic growth. all of those, i think all of us appreciate that. for the purpose of this legislation, however, it would drive up our cost to the point where it would make the numbers we talked about look mild by comparison and we would lose the under lying goal, which is to keep people in their position. at least that's what piece been reported to us. we ran proposals by them. both in terms of people staying in the system, and what would the cost of the overall bill be. and they came back, the number that got us, most people staying in the program, had lower cost,

was the number of 25. and, hopefully with that number, we're talking about, again, any time you throw these numbers around, if you're a small business, obviously the margins you play with them are small. these are businesses where many cases, they don't even pay themselves, sometimes, just to stay in business. this is not a question of people making a lot of money. to the extend we're able to provide, they make that option to choose $170 for a part time employee. and for a full time employee, two dollars a day. to makeup that difference. i know that's not insignificant if you're a small business. but it is within the context. when we look at the free writer proposal that we all toyed with, aside from the discrimination, problems with it. i think the senator pointed out, that was $5,000 per employee we are talking about.

obviously prohibited in terms of its cost. so, i appreciate my colleagues point on this. but i think raising it to that level would take it into a level in terms of both employer-based coverage and costs that would make it difficult. >> mr. chairman, i'm welcome to discussion and debate as to where the number is best. i just have a virgin win concern. and again, i think the administration clearly sees the difficulty our small businesses are facing. otherwise they would not be enter taining this notion of taking some of the tarp funds and providing for this special, temporary relief to our small businesses. i think we need to recognize it. on the one hand, a short-term boost, if you will, is not going to offset this long-term policy that we're going to be putting in place. i'm very concerned that, again,

it's the smallest of our small businesses. and these are the ones, these are the folks that are employeing, you know, a dozen employees, working hard, and to think that they will be in a situation, where they will literally not be hiring of the employees. they will be changing their hiring practices, they will be closing their doors. there is a fine balance here. and i'm just not convinced that 25 is that number for us. >> just point out, giving this to my staff. again, these numbers, and the s.b.a. definition. but on title 7, the a.v.a., the special ed, they use 15 employees. >> they use 50 or 15? >> 15. >> 1-5? >> 1-5. so the range, i think is all

over the place. in terms of what that definition. i was wrong in suggesting that is s.b.a. had a 25 number. i didn't realize, there's 500 down to 15. a broad range. >> thank you mr. chairman, i would say i have to resist the amendment for many of the reasons you mentioned. when we started this process a few weeks ago, we got our first estimate of cost from c.b.o. and it was around a trillion dollars, as i remember it. one of the things that they particularly focused on there was that since there was no obligation on the part of employers to do anything by way of maintaining coverage, or no penalty if they didn't, or no payment if they didn't, that you would have an awful lot of employers dropping coverage, and the people who had had coverage from employers would then be going to these gate ways and

getting what we're trying to establish in this bill. so that's why they thought the cost would be so close to a trillion dollars. one of the key things that we changed to get a much lower cost estimate from c.b.o. was the imperioli position of this employer sponsored, it's called a shared responsibility payment for employers. and, as you pointed out, 25 seems like a reasonable number. for all firms with 25 fewer employees above that have some obligation to either provide coverage, or make a modest payment. we wanted that payment to be as low as possible. to still keep employers that were providing coverage, providing coverage. that's what we've tried to come

up with. and you know, i wish we had a system here that employers who are currently providing coverage would provide coverage without any employer, shared-employer responsibility payment. but, we have not been able to concoct that. and i think adopting the amendment that's proposed here will almost certainly jack up the score on this legislation to a trillion dollars again, or close to it. >> mr. chairman? we're talking about the cost of the bill, but what we're actually talking about is having more people taxed to bay for this. those small businesses out here would love to give their employees insurance. they like to have insurance for themselves. but, they've made a determination that their business won't exist if they make that payment.

so, i think we all agree, that would be the case. but what we're trying to do is figure out how to pay for the bill, and i hate to see this shift us onto the smaller business -- when we first started talking about this. we were talking about wal-mart, in part because of some of their pay, they had people that weren't covered, they were covered by medicaid. we were trying to find a way, i think they called it a free rider, so people wouldn't be doing that. they looked at that and it didn't raise enough money. so it's been generated down, generated down. we got down to $25. and the way that it was costed, when they added the 26th employee, they were owed for 26, not for one. and so, i know senator murray has an amendment that she's going to bring in sometime that would change that. but that significantly changes the cost on the bill as well. and when we're talking about

these numbers of what's the appropriate, i was hoping we would start at 50, and that was based on family medical leave, is set at that. that's what our small group market is listed at in this bill. that's a number that we picked for this bill, was 50. and then i was hoping that it would be fazed in over the next 150 to 500. small business is the engine that's driving this country, and as we concentrate on the big businesses, but the big businesses lay off 10,000 people and that's a big deal. but what happens to those 10,000 people that get laid off? they go work for a small business. yes, less money than they were making when they were working for the big company. but, each of the ones that go to work for a smaller company recognizes how ten your their job is because they're so close

to it. they know how much money they're being paid, they know the business is close to not existing. and if you've been one of those small business people, and i have, you wake up some nights and wonder how you're doing to make pay roll. and one way you make pay roll is you don't pay yourself. these are people that don't have the money. they've got an idea, they trying to build that eye idea. they want to turn their little business into the next microsoft or something, but they're a long way from it. they're still in their garage. some of them get up to 25 employees and they don't want to go any further. i talked to some people over the weekend that are holding their business at 490 because they don't want to make it 500. because they need some of the things in there in order to keep their business functioning and to keep their employees. so whatever level we pick, we're going to be creating a real

problem, and we're not going to meet the tax raise that we're talking about originally. because we're about to modify that once. and i would hope that we would -- if we're going to do the tax, anything we can do to help small businesses has got to be really essential. because that's 80% of the net new jobs in this country. it's over 50% of the private sector employee. that's going by 500. >> >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> there was a study by harvard economist kate baker and university of michigan sociologyist helen leavey that found if employers were required

to offer health insurance, that popped out of the woodwork over at the finance committee sometime ago. i think it's worth repeating. and i think the senator is making what i call, the carrot and stick argument, that i questioned when we were holding many of our, i don't want to call them hargs, i don't know what exactly what they were. and they were helpful, don't misunderstand me. you always have to follow the bouncing ball to figure out where a tarp is going and where the stimulus is going. but if you give them tarm money on one hand and then penalize them if they don't provide costly health insurance on the other, i think the senator's

arguing that more small businesses should be exempt from the employer mandate. and i would just ask the question, what's more important? keeping costs down, and -- our actions on this committee in terms of cost are such that i don't know quite how to describe it. when some of us figure out it's one trillion, it's two trillion. then we're struggling trying to pay for it. what's more important? keeping cost down or keeping jobs in this country? if you lose 33% of uninsured in regards to having their jobs threatened by this employer market. the other thing i don't get is that say it's 25, or say it's 10, 10 is 15, 50, 500, you're a small business owner. you're very dynamic, and you have tuned in on a real

opportunity with regard to whatever you're selling or making or whatever technology that you're using. you would like to have immediately 20 more employees, and you would like to have them such that they can really do the job that this person is involved in. all of a sudden you say whoa, wait a minute, you're going to bowl above 25. whoops. and he's not offering, or she's not offering that health insurance. so, what do you do? do you hire 26 and 27 and let two go. or do you let two go temporarily and come back? and we offered a carrot to those very small businesses to participate. and then as soon as they get above 25, or in this case, 501, you pop them on the head with a stick. and say, here's a penalty. what's that all about? we ought too just declare that small businesses, as the distinguished ranking member has

pointed out, is the engine of the economy, and not play games with numbers so that an employer has to stop and think. man i really have this opportunity to expand, but whoops i can't, because i'm going to get hit with mandatory health insurance which i can't afford, so i can't do that. and i just think -- i never thought about following the small business administrations advice in regards to what is a small business. but i think it's a pretty damn good idea. >> thank you very much. let me just -- we'll move to vote on the amendment, because i think she wants to be heard on this. again, none of us really disagree. the question is these balances, keeping people in work. we want to increase access, but how do you do that? how do you keep people working? obviously the very people we're talking about end up with tremendous health care cost. i appreciate the issue. and i suspect before all through this we're going to come back

and revisit this issue, what the -- >> mr. chairman, before we go to a vote on this, you have mentioned the number that was used in the family leave act. that was where my amendment initially started, before we did some digging into the s.b.a. and realized that our definition is 500. i don't think 25 is the good number. i don't think 50 is either. but if the committee would be willing to accept 50, i'll take that, and then we can have further discussions in the floor. i don't know if you're so inclined, but i'll throw that out there. >> i appreciate that very much. i guess my answer would be, i don't know -- we didn't get a number. did we get a number, mark, david, on when they ran the numbers, what did we get on the number of 50, as opposed to 25 and the cost of the bill?

>> they didn't give a full sensitivity analysis, but they did run a number, where if if request was to try and keep the dropping of employee insurance low, then, the amount of the penalty, if you started imposing it at 50, would be very, very much higher. it would be in the thousands. they certainly didn't score the 500 number, but i suspect they viewed that as functioning the same as not really having an employer assessment. >> just two points. acknowledging the validity of this debate. because it does go to our economic vitality. i think we need to anticipate as this moves out, we're going to need to know, this debate is going to happen again. rather than doing amendment by

amendment request of c.b.o., that we really have an employer range from 500, what does it mean for 250? 100? 50 and so that we're not asking them amendment by amendment. and we anticipate that these are rational quicks that we should be asking about how we can promote economic vitality. at the same time, pass a bill that is also affordable to the business that we'll be providing health insurance. i just want to state one thing about small business. my family's from it, the baker the grocer. to me, weapon we talked about small business, i meant really small business. i also meant the kinds of jobs that will not leave the united states. and for you, it might be fishing guides, like i also have them in maryland. but it does mean joe the plumber. it does mean the home

improvement guy that employees somebody named buck out there right now. you know, helping seniors stay in their home. or building ramps for households. i'm talking about jobs right now where people are adding jobs, and value to our community. that won't be leaving. so, when we talk about small business, it is a range. and quite frankly, senator, if i had an employee, these employers that had 500 or more right now, given where our mutual states are, recognizing the unique challenge, 500 is really now in my state, anything that would be a 500 person job, would be, a very, very cherished employer. but you see what i mean? i'm not talking about oh, we're going to pack up and go. we're not talking about maytag here. we're talking about the maytag repair people who have opened

their own private shop to fix washing machines. >> can i just ask a question here of council. you mentioned the sensitivity analysis. i appreciate what the senator has said as this debate proceeds that we need to have a better understanding as to what the implications of the cost are. but i would hope in any kind of a sensitivity analysis, they not only look at the cost, but they look at what the pressures there are on a business to just remain viable. we need to know in a sensitivity analysis, how many doorps we are forcing close -- doors we are forcing closed through this effort. >> very good. i would also point out just in going back, i ask the small business committee -- 70% of employers employee 25 or fewer employees. 30% complee 25 or more people.

still obviously a significant number between 25 and whatever that number may be. but the bulk of small businesses employee fewer than 25 people. >> would the senator be interesting in advising, modifying her amendment down to the 50 employees? that is the current law of the public health service act. >> now is down to 50 employees, but our concerns are still the higher number. so the clerk will roll call that? lisa? >> yes. >> clerk will call the role. >> senator dodd? >> no. >> senator harken? >> no. >> senator? >> no with reservations. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, i was unaware that we had changed the number to 50. i thought we were voting on 500. >> she modified it down.

>> just now? >> in two seconds? >> ok. >> i requested it. >> i requested and asked the chairman if he would accept it. >> as a modification. members have a right to modify. >> do we know the implications of that? >> we don't know, which is why i voted no. we just haven't done the numbers. keeping costs down, as well as keeping people of an employee based system. whether or not at 50 or 500, as david pointed out, there may not be a substancal different. so we're not clear about that. >> is it the same structure that the 50 first employee you pay for all employees? >> that's all my amendment addresses is the number. is the number itself. >> where are we? >> we start editting our votes

around here, go ahead. >> no. >> senator murray? >> no. >> senator reed? >> no, by proxy. >> senator sanders? >> by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no by proxy. >> senator casey? >> no. >> senator hagen. >> no by proxy. >> senator murphy? >> no. >> senator whitehouse? >> no. >> senatorenzi. aye. >> senator bird? >> aye. >> senator cane? aye. >> senator roberts? >> with no reservations on it. >> chairman kennedy? >> no by proxy. >> the vote is 10 aye's, 13 no's. >> you heard and the rest of us agree with that, this is an issue that will continue to work. because, after a vote like this,

like to hear some good news as well. i want to thank the staff. there's some 16 amendments that -- there's some 60 amendments that we have worked on. 27 have been withdrawn. i'm going to be asked, the number 323, 325, 328, 242, 246, 202 as modified, 217 as modified. greg amendments, 224, 225, 232, amendments number 210, 235, 256 as modified. 272, 274, 278, 280, 285. 295. 241 as modified, 250 as modified. 242 as modified. hatch amendments, 207, 223, 209, robertson number 209, and be

accepted. is there objection without objection in those amendments that i've just enumerated are now accepted. to be withdrawn are the following bury amendments, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, and 236. i want to thank the members, i want to thank the staff for the hard work on dealing with that many amendments. but senator roberts, i gather you have a couple of amendments? why don't we jump to those. >> we'll jump right in.

water's fine. i would like to call up roberts 205 -- robert's 205? clerk will get that. >> ask the clerk to distribute five copies to each member. in large type. 20-point bold, double space. >> sorry pat, go ahead. there are two amendments or one? >> well, there are two amendments, and i'm going to ask to consider them in block. and the other one is -- if you

permit, i think we can expedite the consideration. i would like to start with a few questions to our very distinguished council. and, in terms of percentages, how much does medicare currently pay providers compare with private payers? i've heard numbers around the 80% number. is that in the ball park? >> not 80% less, but 80 or 90, sometimes 90% of it depends on the local area. but a substancal fraction less. >> i've got to introduce you to quite a few doctors and quite a few home health care people and quite a few pharmacists and quite a few other folks in the health care provider arena out in kansas, more sporbleely

western kansas. where i think the number there, that they keep talking about is in the 70 percentile. but i appreciate your expertise. same thing for medicaid, i've heard close to 60%. is that accurate? >> i may bring in the finance committee -- >> or don't do that. >> then i will hazard an inexpert guess that that's a number i've heard frequently but can't verify it. the percentage that medicare pays. >> with your background and your reputation, i think that 60% in your comment is good as gold as we can get around here. now looking at the bill, i notice there's a maximum amount that can be reimbursed by the government run plan, also known as the community health insurance option.

but there is no minimum. is that correct is that correct? >> that is correct. and the amendment was just under discussion. >> i'm aware of that. i was trying to get over so that i could join in the senator. i don't know what the status -- >> failed. >> it failed. well -- >> mr. chairman, it failed, but there were discussions that there were parts of that that were good. >> well, senator whitehouse has also indicated to me -- >> might be worth working on. >> we don't have 25 or 50 or 500 yet. but we're working on it. actually it's three. the size of the commission that i would like to see if we had one. on suggestions. so it's true under this bill, a hospital could get reimbursed at 60% of their actual cost of

care? >> there's no minimum. >> i can tell you, i have 83 critical access hospitals. i have many sole provider hospitals. i have hospitals that have past bond issues. hospitals that have struggled so hard to stay in business. and i thank the council for making his statement. because it is about 60% and you just can't make it under those circumstances. is it true that doctors could get paid at even below medicare or medicaid rates? could? >> theoretically yes, but that would be extraordinarily unlikely, it would seem. well now, you've already said on medicare it's about 90%. i already said most of my doctors and most of my pharmacists who administer medicare part d, they're the person that everybody comes to.

i know one doctor who tried to help a lady maimed mildred. mildred came to me, i want help under the doughnut hole that everyone knows about. he says well i have a plan, there are 47 in kansas, which startled me. i didn't know there were that many. as many predicted there wouldn't be in. he says i can't give it to you because i'm only going to get reimbursed 71%. he happens to be the president of the kansas pharmacist association. so, i'm not going to yaurl with you. because, you're in the theoretical world, and i'm out there visiting the folks. seems to me that it just milwaukees sense that we have a minimum reimbursement rate to ensure that beneficiaries actually have access to health care. i think that is the senator was trying to accomplish as well. if we're really serious about

the government run plan, playing on that playing field with private insurance, that it also seems to me that minimum reimbursement levels should be tied to market rates. now, as an aside, let's review all of the unfair, noncompetitive advantages that the government plan will have over a private insurers. basically, let me just run down the list. the government planned advantages in regards to the private market. well, the government run plan negotiate with providers? no. have to comply with state license requirements? no. pay state and federal taxes? no. be subject to state lawsuits? no. have to find private sources of start up capitol? no. be required to comply with state privacy protections? no. be required to meet state marketing and sales rules?

no. be subject to state oversight? no. i submit mr. chairman that this is not a level playing field. the government will clearly have a very strong advantage. so roberts 205 deals with the very likely scenario that the government run plan will behave exactly like our other current government run plans, medicare and medicaid. and set payment rates to health care providers for below market rates. we know that the government does not negotiate prices. c.m.s. sets them. senator alexander, and others, have already spoken at length so i won't go there. medicare providers also get paid well below cost. i've already indicated this to council. kansas hospitals are projected to operate at a negative 7.7%

medicare margin this year. a loss of nearly $130 million. that brings total losses to kansas hospitals too over $1.1 billion since 1997. that's a real problem. that's just absolutely chaotic in our rural health care delivery system. who pays the difference between what medicare pays and the actual cost of care? americans with private health insurance pay it. as others have already observed according to a recent study, this cause shift amounts to $88.8 billion hidden tax on private payers. the new government run plan in this bill will greatly exacerbate, there's a senate word, in the same or similar manner as medicare. there is a provision in this bill that sets a maximum reimbursement rate, equal to the

average rate paid by private plans. robert 205 would turn this maximum reimbursement into a minimum level. a defined level that is tied to the average level of private payers is necessary for two reasons. first, it will ensure that patients continue to have true access to a doctor if they choose to participate in a government run plan. let me emphasize again how many doctors and how many health care providers are choosing, just out of simple business necessity, not to provide medicare. a very -- we're rationing right now. as we have seen with medicaid, a government payer that underpays providers, severely limits beneficiaries access to health care. second, my amendment would ensure that the government run plan will compete on a level playing field with private insurers, thereby reserving the

choice and the composition of the private market. similar to the senator's amendment earlier, my amendment does protect patients, it protects providers and the choice. it also protects the competition offered by the private market. i urge colleagues to support this amendment. .

>> the senator spending the week on defense department programs and policies for the new budget year. live house coverage now on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord, hear the prayers of your people from across the nation. bring the hearts of all believers together in an act of praise and thanksgiving for your endowment of freedom and the desire to serve you by our work and the compassionate love we show this day. make us instruments of peace in the midst of a world filled with suspicion, competition and self-deception. in us and through us manifest the gift of reconciliation and solidarity that this congress may be strong in its purpose to

serve the common good of the people and give you the glory you deserve both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? penn penn mr. speaker, by the direction of the house republican conference i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 640, resolution -- mr. pence: mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection, the resolution is adopted. and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i rise to express how important it is that we pass comprehensive health rverage this year that expands health insurance coverage, reins in spending and is fiscally responsible. the health reform package that the committees will consider this week shows a genuine commitment to reversing the current unsustainable trends to providing stability for hardworking americans and to being fiscally responsible. there is no question that we must take action and that our actions must be fully paid for. with these ground rules we face difficult decisions, many of

which may not be politically popular. but my colleagues and i on weams are fully -- on ways and means are fully committed to this. our current path in delivering health care is unsustainable, and i share with you some disturbing figures from my home state of new jersey that illustrates the point. new jerseyans are paying more and getting less. between 2000 and 2007, the average new jersey worker's share of family premiums nearly doubled, outpacing the growth and wages nearly five times over. mr. chairman, we must act this week and we must act with all due resolve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, now is not the time for us to make a political pinyata out of the

c.i.a. what did the commission on 9/11 tell us? it said we did not have adequate intelligence. we had lost ap entire generation of intelligence operatives -- an entire generation of intelligence operatives. we talk about the church committee report. we can talk about what happened during the carter administration. we can talk what happened during the clinton administration and we thought we didn't need huge intelligence, we can do it all with electronics. the way we attract people, bright young people is not to go after the c.i.a., is not after the fact for what appears to be political reasons to threaten criminal investigations of those who are doing nothing more than trying to save this country from attack by others who would try and kill innocent america. this outrage must stop. do not make the c.i.a. a political pinata for political

purpose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellson: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, what a glorious day to be in congress. we have an opportunity to preside in this 111th congress when we pass comprehensive health care reform. with a public option. you know, the fact is is that millions of americans are looking forward to the day when they don't have to worry about being excluded for a preexisting condition, when they have true portability, when we can unlock the entrepreneurial talent of the american public because people can pursue their entrepreneurial dreams without losing health care. the fact is the other team, look, they had their day. they tried and all we've gotten is sicker, at a higher expense and we've been dying earlier. we have not seen better outcomes with status quo health care, and people who stand for the status quo, they've had their shot and their time has

run. so, mr. speaker, thank you for presiding today. this is a good day to stand up for comprehensive health care reform and a strong robust public option. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lance: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate waren township, new jersey, being one of the top 100 places to live for 2009. waren township was ranked top in the annual rankings. located in the heart of the mountains 35 miles west of new york city in somerset county, new jersey, warren township is not your typical big city suburb. once described as the greenest place in new jersey, warren township is home to city grupe. yet the community retains its rural character through its open space and its 72 working

farms. good schools and family friendly township recreation and other things make warren township just one of the great places to live, work and raise a family. congratulations to warren township, i am proud to be the township's representative in washington. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. wherever i go in my district i hear the same thing, folks feel like greater arizona's values are not being represented in washington. in this historic and challenging time, it is more important than ever for someone to stand up for what is important to us. i am determined to give voice to our values. today i'm launching my

defending arizona values campaign to continue my fight for the ideals i was raised with in rural arizona. i will take on big government to make it more accountable and responsive to our needs instead of just offering handouts and weighing us down with bureaucracy. i will also work to preserve our tradition of self-reliance. as part of this effort, i am proud to announce that i have signed on as a co-sponsor to the federal reserve transparency act. we need more oversight and accountability in our government, and auditing the fed is a valuable step in the right direction. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one

minute and trox. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> today i rise to pay tribute to an apple hearst resident -- amherst resident. alberta became the first group of women to fly military aircraft for the united states. the primary mission of the women's air force service pilots, or wasp, as they came to be known, was to fly noncombat military missions so their male counterparts could be deployed to combat. the wasp did much more than fulfill wartime needs. overcoming significant hurdles to carry the torch for amelia earhart and to pass it on to sally ride. last month, after the president signed into law a measure -- that honors alberta and her fellow wasp with a congressional gold medal, it was our hope that she would be able to travel to washington in the near future and take part in a ceremony commemorating this honor. but ad sadly alberta passed away this past friday evening.

on behalf of the people of western new york, i extend my deepest sympathies to alberta's loved ones and ask the house to join me in honoring this distinguished member of the greatest generation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. sanchez: i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to highlight the significance of health care reform for our country and to emphasize the importance of keeping the real v.i.p.'s, the people, involved in the process. health care reform is evolving rapidly, and i want to ensure the people back home have real input into what is going on here in washington, d.c. earlier this year, i set up a health advisory committee which i meet with every month and which my staff deals with on a daily basis. members of the advisory committee are not only

receiving the news that's happening here on capitol hill with respect to health care but they actually give us nair input of what they're hearing and what they want to see in a health care reform bill. their experts opinion are so valued in our ability to try to decide what to do here, and next week i will hold a town hall meeting where people back home can come and actually give us their ideas and listen to what is going on here with the development of health care reform. i encourage all my colleagues to go home and to hold these types of meetings and to listen to what the people really want. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rehberg: now the white house plans to spend 18 million taxpayer dollars to redesign the website that tracks how many jobs have been, quote, saved or created by the stimulus.

montanans shouldn't be asked to foot the bill for a website that only serves as political damage control for a failing big government policy. we'd rather know the reality on the ground. that's why i launched a website that lets my constituents reports their experience with the stimulus. montana stimulus watch didn't cost taxpayers millions of dollars, but it did bring to light that a company had to lay off 24 workers because stimulus dollars went to an out-of-state contractor to pave a montana road. i doubt those layoffs will be counted in this slippery saved or created formula, but then again, $18 million can't buy credibility. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, today i hosted a panel discussion on the results of a historic poll

on women immigrants to america. today women comprise half or more of the immigrants entering this country. women are the new face of migration in america. among the findings of this historic poll, many women immigrants acknowledge speaking little or no english while confronting anti-immigrant discrimination, lack of hark and low-paying employment, well below the status of the professional work most did in their home countries. 38% of the women came to join family members. 22% to make a better life for their children. their two biggest challenges were to help their children achieve success and to be able to hold their families together. the poll data paralleled my mother's own experience in bringing me and my brothers to the united states from japan in the mid 1950's. her desire to build better futures for us. her early low-paying no benefit jobs, her determination to keep the family together as head of household, the importance of family to women immigrants is something we can all relate to and support as we discuss and

debate immigration reform. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a few years ago my predecessor, congressman hyde, started a great program. and it was an initiative to invite young men and women to participate in a civic conversation and its in illinois and it is a mayor for a day program. i am pleased to announce that brad martin of brian middle school was the winner of the mayor for a day program. and essentially, i won't read his whole essay, you can go to my website and check it out, but essentially he said if he were a mayor for a day, he would start a care program which essentially stands for caring and respecting everyone. and i think in this day and this age in the 111th congress, all of us can learn from the wisdom of brad martin. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when is enough enough? a.i.g. is getting ready to pay out more in retention bonuses. this is on top of $165 million they paid now the march to the same executives whose credit default swaps and other poorly designed financial products drove the world economy off a cliff. the only difference is, this time around they are trying to get the american people to say that what they're doing is right. give me a break. taxpayers have already infused $170 billion into a.i.g. and where is their break? a teacher in my district gets $60,000 a year. a bench scientific coming up with a cure for cancer gets maybe $200,000 a year. an e.r. doctor saving people's lives every single day gets maybe $350,000 a year.

a.i.g. has asked the administration's compensation czar to sign off on these bonuses, even while acknowledging that he has no authority to stop them. why? because a.i.g. wants cover. i urge mr. fineburg to reject a.i.g.'s request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, if there's one thing the feds are really good at, it's wasting money. and thanks to the so-called stimulus bill, there are billions of citizen dollars floating around loose, being blown and a report released last week, we found out that the money is not being used to create permanent jobs in private sector as it was intended. it's actually being used to pay for overspending in state budgets and expand government bureaucracy.

and in some states, mr. speaker, they're erecting signs to try to convince people that the government stimulus boone doing sl a success. here's one of those signs. this sign is being posted where no construction is actually started. and the signs cost $2,000 in pennsylvania and new york, new jersey pays $3,000 for a sign like this. who's making these signs? when big government is in charge of the job creation business instead of private industry, it's easier to create million-dollar public relations propaganda signs than it is to create real jobs and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, we're closing in on a moment in american history that's taken over 70 years to reach. in the mid 1930's, franklin roosevelt considered a proposal

that would extend health care coverage to every american. but he withdrew the idea because the political will was not up to the challenge at the time. but times have changed. president obama has called on the congress to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation and he has the support of the american people behind him, especially the middle class. there are countless facts and figures to support his effort. there are maps, charts, there are all kinds of spread sheets but there is one fact that stands out above all others. every american today either faces his or her own health care crisis or knows someone who is. when americans play by the rules but see their economic lives threatened and destroyed because their medical expense -- because of their medical expenses, america must change. we're at the cross roads of providing a fair deal for the american people but we cannot take progress for granted. times like this don't come along very often. we cannot afford to let this one

fall short. i yield back the balance of my time. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor mrs. susan lewis, who has spent her life in the classroom, devoting her time to educating our youth. mrs. lewis is refiring from 45 years of teaching -- retiring from 45 years of teaching. more than 30 of those years were spent teaching algebra. coleman junior high will be losing an amazing individual who contributed to the lives of two generations of arkansans. her time in the classroom provided her students the necessary tools for building a brighter future. mrs. lewis exemplifies the idea that with good teachers, there is improved student achievement. her hard work and dedication made her a model for success, for students and her co-workers. we're blessed -- blessed to have such a caring teacher as mrs. lewis.

i commend her for her service as well as her good work and wish her continued success in future endeavors. i ask my colleagues today to join with me in honoring mrs. lewis, a wonderful teacher who's always and will be dedicated to the students of the third district of arkansas. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minl. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. private health insurance companies have 2/3 of all americans that have insurance enrolled in their plans. and they pay 1/3 of the overall cost for health care in this country. 2/3 of that cost is borne by the american taxpayer and the working middle class of this country. will you hear in the next few days a lot of carping -- harping about the cost of health care reform for this nation. i think the only way, and i believe sincerely, to reduce health care costs, bring private insurance companies under control, by having a competitive

plan, is to have a public option. a public option that doesn't deny people health care because of pre-existing conditions, a public option in the public marketplace that competes with private insurance and a public option that extends health benefits and opportunities to all americans. if we are going to do health care reform right, we must provide competition for public insurance and we must provide opportunity and choice for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. the women's fund of miami-dade county is a catalyst for social change and economic justice, assisting women to reach their full potential. together with the research institute on social and economic policy at florida international university, the women's fund published a report entitled "portrait of women's economic security in greater miami" which

reflects the dire economic situation facing women. more than half of working women do not earn adequate income to cover their most basic necessities. 86% of single mothers do not have enough income to be self-sufficient. nearly 20% of women who work are underemployed and only 1/4 of women have a retirement or pension plan. the numbers in these categories are even lower than the national average, but reflect the problem of women across the contract -- across the country. here in congress i work to empower women to be self-sufficient and support policies that enhance women's economic security, including legislation to provide paid parental leave to federal employees. i will work to continue for south florida women by promoting initiatives that protect the rights of women across the nation. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from ohio rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, until we fix health care in this country, families and small businesses will bear a heavier and heavier financial burden that will slow economic recovery and stifle growth and investment. in ohio health care costs for small businesses have grown 30% in recent years. employer coverage across the state has declined so that now less than half of all small businesses offer health coverage benefits to their employees. the average ohio family that does receive health coverage from their employer pays nearly $13,000 in premiums every year. and because more than one in 10 ohioans lives without any health insurance at all, ohio's economy loses between $3.5 billion and $7 billion every year due to lost productivity. the health care crisis is an economic crisis. and part of fixing our economy is ensuring that every single

american has quality, affordable health care. the status quo is no longer tolerable for ohio and no longer tolerable for america. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, $a trillion-dollar stim -- $a -- -- mr. speaker, a $1 trillion stimulus bill is not working. americans are hurting as they struggle to find work and pay the bills. so what's next? despite all the broken promises, now the liberals want to mettle with the health care system and spend another $1 trillion. for their plan to work, democrats are proposing tax hikes on everything from small businesses to the elimination of the tax deduction for charitable contributions to tax hikes on your favorite soft drink at the convenient store. americans deserve a better solution.

house republicans have a plan that won't bankrupt us or increase private insurance rates. in fact, the republican plan will reduce health care costs, expand access, increase the quality of care for americans, most importantly, the plan ensures that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. the democrats' government-run health care program is the wrong decision for america. let's support the plan that offers -- americans the freedom and choices they deserve without strangling future generations with insurmountable debt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> address the house for one pin -- minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, as a member of the house subcommittee i've been a strong supporter of meaningful health care reform, including a robust public health insurance option. but there's a problem with the plan that's on the table because it incorporates a medicare reimbursement system that isn't fair. all you have to do is look at

states like iowa and minnesota which consistently rank in the top five in terms of quality patient outcomes and in the bottom five in medicare reimbursement or look at the state of louisiana where we spend more per medicare patient than any other state and is ranked 50th in objective patient outcome measurements. that system is flawed when you base a public health insurance option on medicare plus 5%, you perpetuate an inefficient system. medical economists will tell you the most effective way to take this head on is to address the problem of overutilization in geographic parts of the country which wastes money and result in poor patient outcomes. unless we incorporate those incentives into this public option and address this problem in medicare, we'll never have meaningful reform and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: will rogers once said the opposite of progress is

congress. watching the debate on the floor today, i start to get a better idea about what he meant. at a time when our country is facing the worst recession in a quarter of a century, the democrat majority here just got done passing a national energy tax that will raise the cost of utilities for every american household and now they're down here talking about raising taxes for a government takeover of health insurance. all the while millions of americans are out of work, hundreds of thousands of americans continue to lose their jobs every month. now, when this $1 trillion stimulus bill was passed in february, we were told it would create jobs immediately. it would hold unemployment below 8%. unemployment is now 9.5%. it's the worst in 26 years. almost two million people have lost their jobs since the so-called stimulus bill was passed and yet the president just said it's, quote, done its job. he said, the stimulus was, quote, working exactly as we anticipated. with all due respect to the

president of the united states and my democratic colleagues, the stimulus bill is not working and the american people know it. the american people deserve a recovery plan that will create real jobs and a real recovery and that's fiscal discipline in washington, d.c., and tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the cost and inefficiency of our health care system is embarrassing. the only word. the american families pay $1,100 extra every year through their health insurance premiums to fund care for the patients who are unable to pay their hospital bills. the u.s. meanwhile ranks 42nd in the world in life expectancy and the overuse of invaseble medical procedures is dangerous to many. unexpected health care expenses is the leading cause of bankruptcy amongst american families. the system is bankrupting the government of the united states, of connecticut and of the other

49 states. we have got to get this reform right. it is critical to american families, to fiscal prudence and to the future of this country. it won't be easy, but inaction is simply not an option. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. chaffetz: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today for grave concern about this credit card congress. every problem seems to come with a spend plan and no amount of money seems to be enough. our annual deficit is a discrepancy between tax revenues and public expenditures. we exceeded the $1 trillion deficit mark for this year and we still have a long way to go this year. our national debt is the accumulative amount of money that the american people owe over the course of the past congresses, and it, too, has skyrocketed. as of june 1, it stood at $11.5

trillion. during the month of june, the national debt increases by over $223 billion. the government spent over $18 billion in interest payments in just the month of june. that's $600 million a day. because the congress did not have the self-discipline to spend less than it took in, $6 hupped million of your -- $6 monday -- $600 million of your money is going out the door in interest rates. we can't afford to run this country on a credit card. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, during the fourth of july recess, i traveled home to visit with constituents and speak with them for their problems and find ways in which we could

help them. as is often the case, my constituents continued to inspire me with their willingness to take on hard challenges and help fair family and neighbors in need. -- help their family and neighbors in need. many drive veterans to medical appointments even though the drive can last over three or four hours. it's tough but oftentimes it's what's needed to help veterans with their medical services. i introduced a bill that would dreck the secretary of the v.a. to reimburse family caregivers of disabled veterans for travel expenses. including lodging and food. when they take vets for appointments and treatments. rural veterans face many obstacles when seeking medical treatment, and i believe this legislation will make their lives a little bit easier and help get them the care that they need. we made a lot of promises to our veterans and it's about time we begin to honor them. i hope that my colleagues will support this very important piece of legislation, and i urge its passage.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> i'd like to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, as congress takes on the essential task of strengthening our health care system we have an extraordinary opportunity here to do something good and right for the american people. while the challenges before us are multiple, shifting the health care paradigm from a system that treats the symptoms of sickness and disease to one that promotes lifelongwellness and prevenge for all americans would be -- lifelong wellness and prevention for all americans would be a good start. it would be a loosely defined public option has yet to address several underlying complexities within our system. but the essential question here is really simple. how do we improve health care outcomes and reduce costs while protecting vulnerable persons? a thorough policy debate must be grounded in these

cornerstone objectives to effectively improve the quality of and access to health care for all americans, or else we are simply discussing a new government financing mechanism without regard to unsustainable cost projections. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor the actions of two brave men from my district, mr. harlan stokes and his son, charlie. last august harlan, an eagle scout himself, and charlie, who was well on his way to earning the eagle scout rank, set out to concur longs peak in the rocky mountain national park. little did they know they would need all of their scout training before the day was done. as the two reached the top of the mountain a powerful storm

hit bringing rain and hail. harlan and charlie quicking headed down the mountain, but as they went down they found other less prepared hikers. bravely staying to help, they gathered those they had found and found them shelter in a nearby cave. and over the next two hours, the father-son duo selflessly cared for 23 hikers while they themselves began to suffer from hyperthermia. as a result of their courageous actions, all 23 hikers made it off the mountain safely. to honor their heroism, the two were awarded one of the boy scouts most prestigious awards, the national medal of merit. today we salute their bravery and honor their selflessly. harlan and charlie's story exemplifies the quality of the boy scouts of america and represents the best that america has to offer. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. broun: mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. broun: mr. speaker, americans are hurting because of the high cost of health care. i'm a medical doctor. we need to fix the system. it's affecting everybody, but it's health care financing that's the problem. but why are health care expenses so high? in my rural south georgia medical practice, i had a lab. congress passed a bill called the clinical laboratory improvement act that shut down my lab. prior to being shut down, if some patient came to me with a sore throat i would do a test to see if they had a bacterial infection or a viral infection to see if they needed

antibiotics. i charged $12 to do the test in five minutes. i had to send patients across the way to the hospital two to three hours at $75. it's government intrusion into the health ca system that's caused this high cost. we've got to get the government out of it. this public option is going to force everybody from their private insurance over to public insurance where the system's already broken, where we're having to ration the care, where the government bureaucrats are going to have to make decisions for you. the american people need to stand up and say no to this public option. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brown: mr. speaker, like the rest of the nation, it's been a hard summer for the first district of south carolina. just last week georgetown county international people cut their hours in a steel mill closed indefinitely, putting 275 south carolinians out of

work. with 14.4 million unemployed americans, this number seems small but with no end in sight closings like this will continue nationwide. more than four months after the stimulus package, we still face the highest unemployment in 25 years. south carolina itself has a rate over 12%, the fourth highest in the nation. sadly, the democrats' only answer is more federal spending and a cap and trade national energy tax that will increase energy costs for every american sending millions of jobs overseas. these are not plans for prosperity and the administration must be held accountable for them and their failed stimulus, a plan pushed through congress with false promises of immediate relief. the republican plan would have cost as much and created twice as many job, but as every american continues to ask, where are the jobs? we vow to work toward real solutions for american families, small businesses and manufacturing. thank you, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleadfress the house for one my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. speaker. and as we heard the previous speaker say, the national debt right now as of june 30 stands at 11.5 trillion. how much is a trillion? does everyone know how much a trillion is, mr. speaker? i would like to explain it. one million seconds. one million seconds is a little over 11 days. one billion seconds is 31 years and eight months. 31 years and eight months for one billion seconds. how many years is a trillion seconds? a trillion seconds is 31,710 years. 31,710 years is made up by one trillion seconds.

if i were to give, mr. speaker, if i were to give somebody $1,000 a second, 60 seconds a minute, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, 365 days, it would take me 31.7 years to spend $1 trillion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, back in january of this year, this administration issued a report called the job impact of the american recovery and the investment act, the stimulus, and a study said the key goal of the administration is we should save or create three million jobs by the end of 20 10. when when the congress passed

the stimulus, they said we'll start adding jobs rather than losing them. as a matter of fact, majority leader hoyer said there will be an immediate jolt in jobs. this will create jobs immediately. we have spent five months since the bill passed. the blue line shows the prediction. the red line shows the losses that have occurred. millions of jobs have been lost despite their spending $800 billion of taxpayers money. and vice president biden said, well, we misread the economy. well, you know what, mr. speaker, every single republican did not misread the economy. that's why every single republican voted against that $800 billion stimulus because we knew it would spend too much it would borrow too much and eventually spend too much of the taxpayers' money. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday the deficit for this year exceeded $1 trillion just in this year. in fact, since president obama's take in office, more than two million americans have lost their jobs. and now with that backdrop, what is this administration talking about? first of all, the president's going around saying that -- i'll read his quote. the stimulus bill has done its job and is working exactly as we anticipated. did they anticipate a bill that would cost $800 billion in money we don't have? and now two million more americans are losing their jobs. it's time we get this right. while the white house is talking about even another stimulus bill, the american people are saying enough is enough. stop the spending and the borrowing and the taxing and let's get americans back to work. let's actually provide that relief to small businesses and average american families that we on the republican side

proposed and president obama didn't even want to look at. it's time to bring bipartisanship and real solutions to this problem that's facing our country instead of that tired old adade of spending and spending -- adage of spending and spending and this government takeover. we have to get back on track and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the american people are hurting and republicans want to help. president obama and democrats in congress promised that their stimulus plan would bring immediate relief. republicans knew better. unfortunately for the american people the results are rolling in. two million american jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed into law. more than 400,000 jobs were lost in the month of june alone. just when you thought it was clear that we can't spend, borrow and tax our way out of a

growing economy, democrats propose a government takeover of health care that will lead to higher taxes, more government spending and even further job losses. the american people deserve a real plan for real recovery, not yet another excuse to spend , raise taxes. the republicans plan brings fiscal discipline back to washington and lets money stay in the hands of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. when president obama came into office, there was a hole in the ideas of america and the policy of america as great as the grand canyon, one of our great treasures. unfortunately, the lack of ideas and policy which shouldn't be a hallmark of this country was so great that president obama had to do much in this 111th congress to try to help him. we didn't have an energy policy and the floor of this earth and this country's energy independence and this country's

reliance on fossil fuels was a very scary proposition. we're the only industrialized country in the world without a health care policy and we have 47 million people without health care and that's unacceptable. and our position among the nations of the world was at a low webb and president obama has restored that. this congress is trying to put america where it should be with a place for great ideas and restored policies and we have an eight-year hole to fill. it's a difficult situation we've been given. i'm glad to work with president obama and this congress and put america afloat and going in the right direction. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules 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. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

>> i move to spass the bill as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 80, h.r. 1037, a bill to direct the secretary of veterans affairs -- veterans aye affairs to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain qualifying work study activities under title 38 united states code. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from arkansas, mr. boozman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank the chairwoman of the subcommittee of the veterans' committee on economic opportunity for introducing this bill. the pilot college work study programs for veterans' act of 2009. it would direct the v.a. to conduct a five-year pilot project to expand on existing work study activities for student veterans to participate in work study positions and academic departments and student services.

as a committee -- as this committee's chairman and a former university professor, i understand the financial hurdles of paying for college and strongly support all methods to make education more affordable for our brave veterans. this legislation provides an additional avenue for student veterans to pay for college and places them on a par with other students in the same financial situation. furthermore these positions would provide student veterans with much needed job skills that they can use in their professional career. our chairwoman, ms. herseth sandlin, will be speaking on this bill, and i urge all of our colleagues to join me in reaffirming our country's commitment to our veterans by supporting this h.r. 1037. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr.

chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may use. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boozman: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 402, a bill to designate the v.a. outpatient clinic in knoxville, tennessee, as the william c. tallent department of veterans' affairs outpatient clinic. i'm sorry. i'm confused on the order. are we doing the -- mr. filner: i apologize, mr. speaker. i thought we were on 1037, not 402. but we'll do -- mr. boozman: i apologize. i had the -- them out of order. mr. filner: it was my fault. with unanimous consent i'd like to continue on 1037 and then we'll go to the 402. mr. boozman: yes, very much so. mr. filner: i apologize. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, chairman filner. i rise in support of h.r. 1037 as amended, introduced by the distinguished chair of the subcommittee on economic

opportunity, ms. herseth sandlin. the pilot college work study program for veterans act of 2009 would expand the number and types of work study positions at colleges and universities. the types of work study jobs that can be funded through the montgomery g.i. bill are too restrictive. expanding the types of jobs veterans can hold at schools benefits student veterans financially, but more importantly in my view, it places them in positions where nonveteran students and the faculty will see the advantages of military service to the nation. unfortunately people see the entitlement side of life that holds no commitment. just as the original g.i. bill opens higher education to the masses of citizen shoulders -- soldiers after world war ii, improved the -- improved the experiences of all students, including nonveterans. this bill will broaden the impact of veterans throughout the nation's higher educational system.

i am reminded of the statement by the president of harvard university shortly after world war ii, generations after the world war ii generation filled the campuses, in recan'ting his earlier concerns he stated, and i quote, the mature student body that filled our colleges in 1946 and 1947 was a delight to all who were teaching undergraduates. for seriousness, perceptiveness and studiousness and all other undergraduate virtues. the former soldiers and sailors were the best in harvard's history. h.r. 1037 as amended will provide our veterans on campus a unique opportunity to earn while they learn, to build their resumes ant influence campus life. too often our young citizens see a distorted image of veterans and this will help replace that image with one of men and women who are dedicated to education and making meaningful contributions to society. by enlarging the types of work study jobs veterans can hold on

campus, we're putting them on the forefront of student life. as teaching assistants, administrative staff, student counselors and other high visibility jobs, nonveteran students and faculty will see them just as the harvard president did over 60 years ago. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i would yield as much time as she may consume to our dynamic chair of the subcommittee on economic opportunity, ms. herseth sandlin of south dakota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from south dakota is recognized. ms. herseth sandlin: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from california, for yielding. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1037, the pilot college work study program for veterans act of 2009 as amended which the veterans affairs economic opportunity subcommittee passed on june 4 and the full committee approved on june 10. i was proud to introduce this important legislation and i

would like to thank the full committee chairman, mr. filner, the ranking member, mr. bureau, for their leadership in support of this legislation and as well as the support of congressman grijalva of arizona who was an original co-sponsor. i've been pleased to be able to work with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. boozman of arkansas, in a bipartisan way to advance this legislation to the full committee and now to the floor. i also want to thank congressman teague of new mexico for offering an amendment to this bill during the subcommittee markup that clarified the effective end date of the pilot program. this legislation works to expand and improve the educational benefits available to our country's veterans by directing the secretary of the department of veterans' affairs to conduct a five-year pilot project that tests the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of work study activities available to veterans receiving educational benefits through the v.a. currently, eligible student veterans enrolled in college degree programs, vocational

programs or professional programs are he will stroible -- eligible to participate in the work study allowance program. however, they're limited to positions involving v.a.-related work such as processing v.a. paperwork, we are forming outreach services and assisting staff at medical facilities for the offices of the national cemetery administration. thus veterans aren't afforded opportunities similar to those offered to nonveteran students. this pilot program would expand the qualifying work study activities allowed to include positions in academic departments such as tutoring or assisting with researching, teaching and lab work, as well as student services such as positions in career centers, financial aid, orientation, cashiers, admission records and registration offices. given the wide variety of tasks our men and women in uniform perform while serving their country, our nation should be capitalizing on the unique training and skill sets that veterans who are pursuinging their degrees bring to these institutions. this pilot program will run from

2010 to 2014 and give the v.a. an adequate opportunity to determine if this expanded work study program should be further expanded. this bill also requires the secretary of the v.a. to publish regulations on the supervision of veterans participating in these expanded work study positions. educational benefits are one of the essential benefits that our country gives its veterans. these benefits help our veterans take -- make the experience, take that experience that they've gained while serving and translate that knowledge into college degrees and other types of professional development. the money we as a nation invest in the education of veterans has a direct, positive, -- direct positive economic benefit to our country. i look forward to continuing to work in a bipartisan manner with mr. boozman and other subcommittee members to ensure veterans are receiving the best possible educational benefits. on a personal note, mr. speaker, it's been 20 years now, but as a work study student myself i

wouldn't want any of my contemporaries then and certainly the young men and women who are serving in uniform today to be denied particular opportunities available in an academic environment to pursue their own educational aspirations or to serve their fellow students on campus in any capacity with the v.a. education benefits are intended to provide. so, again, i want to thank chairman filner for his leadership on this issue and i urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. boozman: i yield the gentleman from georgia three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of the veterans of this country. mr. speaker, i served in the united states marine corps. i'm also an original intent constitutionalism thist and i

believe very firmly that most americans understand that a national defense, a strong national defense, and thus supporting our military men and women as well as the veterans, is critically important. it's important for the veterans, the retirees, those who are on disability, it's extremely important to them. it's also important to our current active duty troops, for to us support veterans, because how are we going to get people to stay in the military, to be senior n.c.o.'s, senior officers or flag officers, if we do not fulfill the promises that we make to the men and women who come into the military to begin with? and thus it's also important in the recruiting process, how are we going to recruit good men and women to come into the military and make it a career if we don't fulfill the promises that we've

made to them as they enlist or are commission -- commissioned in the military. we have broken promises to the veterans. we've broken many promises. in my district i have two stellar v.a. hospitals in the charlie norwood veterans center. i also have a veterans clinic just outside of athens, georgia, that gives stellar care to our veterans. the veterans that are denied health care and educational needs and other things they've been promised and it's a tragedy. we have to stop denying veterans the promises that we've made them and it's absolutely critical for our national defense and thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. mr. boozman: i just want to say,

to thank ms. herseth sandlin for bringing this forward. i, like her, it's been a little more than 20 years, enjoyed the ability to participate with work study. i know how important it is and how important it will be to the these students if we can extend this any further to our military. so i urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, it's a good one. i appreciate chairman filner, mr. buyer, for bringing this floor and urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1037 as amended and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1037 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the -- 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. boozman: mr. speaker -- mr. broun: mr. speaker. i request the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. without objection, the operations of house resolution 640 is stayed, pending the house's acceptance of a resignation creating a visa canssy dash vacancy on the committee concerned -- vacancy on the committee concerned. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. filner: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 40 , and apologize to mr. duncan for confusing the order. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 402, a bill to designate the department of veterans' affairs outpatient clinic in knoxville, tennessee, as the william c. tallent clinic. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from