has worked actively to try to get us in a position where we can answer that where are the jobs. and my question is, why did they lose so many before they started asking the jobs where are the jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i don't particularly care to get into a partisan diatribe. i recognize the gentleman from texas is chairman of the republican congressional campaign committee and i can understand his position of why he would be willing to look anywhere he can to find the slightest issue which he thinks can restore his party to the majority status in this house. and i sympathesize with him because i think he will have to strain at nets often in order to

accomplish that. and one such example is the objection that they're raising to the rule this morning with respect to amendments. i want to walk you through, mr. speaker, what the facts are on the amendments that were offered to this bill. there were 35 amendments that were initially filed for the bill. on the democratic side, there were 21. seven of those amendments were not in order because they violated the rules of the house. so they were set aside. that left 14 left. of the 14 that were left, nine of them are now going to be wholly or partially incorporated into the manager's amendment. . with the agreement of the sponsors. with five left. two of those amendments in the judgment of the rules committee

were related to arguments that better belonged in the authorizing committees. another was, and i'm sure the gentleman from arizona will be shocked by this, another would have added an earmark which would not have been eligible for funding under the program to which the earmark wanted to be attached. so the rules committee turned that down. and then two of those amendments, the remaining two were dropped with the understanding that we would try to strengthen funding for the programs involved when we moved to conference. so we've just -- so we dealt with all of the amendments on the democratic side. on the republican side, there were 14 amendments that were offered. initially, nine of them were out of order. they were worked with and that reduced the number to four amendments that were out of order under house rules and

subject to point of order. that left 10 republican amendments. three of those issues, again, in the judgment of the rules committee, were determined to be issues that more appropriately should be dealt with in the health care reform bill. example one sought to prevent us from creating a public plan in the health insurance bill. i did not know that the appropriations committee was so talented that in addition to handling the budget matters it's also supposed to interfere in judgments about health care reform. evidently some people think they should. i think the rules committee was right. another amendment dealt with an issue that had been disposed of in the authorizing committee, the education and labor committee in the same week. and then there was one other amendment that simply rehashed an old campaign argument, a

matter which relates to elections and more properly belongs in either the judiciary committee or the house administration committee which oversees elections. that leaves five remaining republican amendments. four of them were made in order. four of them were made in order. four out of the five remaining amendments. and there was only one that was not made in order, and that one was an amendment that simply sought to stuff an additional $1 billion into a program that had already been increased by $12 billion. so if someone wants to make a federal case out of the fact that one amendment was denied, be my guest. i've seen worse offenses around here. with respect to the budget, i'm not going to get into a partisan debate. all i want to say is this. both presidents, bush and president obama, were faced

with terrible problems when the economy collapsed late last year. we were losing 700,000 full-time jobs at a time when mr. obama was still waiting to take the oath to be sworn in. and so he inherited a terrible problem. both president bush and president obama wound up having to push a lot of money into the financial sector of the economy to solve our economic problems. this bill takes care of the rest of the economy, and i hope we get to it and support it when it comes before the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, mr. speaker, i'm saddened that the gentleman from wisconsin believes that if i bring up a question about jobs that that's political. shouldn't be. it's not on our side. it's just a fact of the matter we don't know where the jobs

are. we were promised these jobs. secondly, it's good for me to know i know who runs the rules committee, the chairman of the appropriations committee, because i thought that the chairman of the rules committee did but i found out now it's run by the appropriations chair, at least i know that answer today. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indianapolis, indiana, the distinguished gentleman, mr. burton. mr. burton: i thank my friend for yielding. in 1965 this congress passed the federal family education loan program act, and it was designed to provide private funding -- private funds for college students' loans. and since 1965 this organization has provided over 200 million loans to college students with private funds, and they've delivered about $800 billion in loans.

the problem that we have is unemployment right now. it's 9.5% nationwide, and in indiana, my state, it's 10.7%. and we have 35,000 jobs nationwide that work for this education program funded by private funds, and 2,400 people in indiana -- now, mr. carter and i, congressman carter and i had an amendment that would guarantee the survivability of this program because it has helped so many college students get loans, and it's done it without the taxpayers' dollars. and what the democrats are trying to do is they're trying to have a direct loan program take the place of the privately funded program we now have, and that the government and the taxpayers will be paying for that loan. it's one more attempt for them to put everything that we do day and night under the control of the federal government. now, why in the world when we

have a program that's providing millions of loans to college students without taxpayer dollars funding it, why would we want to change to a direct loan program and have the taxpayers underwrite it, especially at a time when the economy's going down the tubes and we're spending trillions of dollars on many programs we don't even need? the automobile industry, the banking and financial industry, the health care industry, energy, all of those things. and now they're going after education by trying to come up with a direct loan program that the taxpayers will have to pay for and the private funding that's now being used will now be utilized. it will cost somewhere between $-- 30,000 and 35,000 jobs across the country. now, they want us to have more jobs. here's a chance to preserve 30,000 to 35,000 jobs by not having the government step in and take over the financing of college loans for students, and yet you want to have the

government take over, the department of education take over, take it away from the private sector and independent funding so we would have more government control and cost another 35,000 jobs we're going to put in the unemployment lines. it makes no sense to me. my colleagues, i'm very disappointed you did not allow this under the rule. we should have fully debated this on the floor. i don't think you want to debate it because you don't want the american people to see once again we're putting everything under the control of government, every aspect of their lives, and now including education. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'd like at this time to ask of the speaker how much time remains on each side, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 15 1/2 minutes, and the gentleman from texas has 16 minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very

much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased at this time to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from connecticut, my good friend, a member of the appropriations committee, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for four minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule, and i commend the chairman and the staff for an excellent bill which reflects our noblest priorities as a nation. it has been said that society should be judged by how it treats its least fortunate members, and with this bill, i believe we do our nation proud. the goal of the bill has always been to make a strong investment in our future, to take seriously our responsibilities to the american public on the issues that affect people every single day. from our health, to our children's education, to scientific research that will unlock the cures of tomorrow, from protecting workers, to providing the training they need to succeed in today's economy.

our bill does not disappoint, and, yes, to help states serve both the 14 million unemployed americans and the many million more -- millions of underemployed americanses, the bill provides training, for support of workers, on working protection. the bill provides an increased to key health and safety programs that protect the more than 140 million strong american work force. on education, the bill restores critical funding to title 1 so that disadvantaged children can continue to gain the educational skills that they need to thrive on special needs education. the bill says to our states the federal government is going to begin to make good on its promise, not leaving with you -- you with an unfunded mandate to pick up the cost for special

needs kids, but we are going to make a contribution to that. and we do so with a 25% federal contribution. on personal -- i'm personally grateful for the chairman to continue the funding for the even start program. the bill makes real progress toward aiding college students with a significant increase in the pell grant, allowing us to raise the maximum pell grant award to $5,550. and with regard to my colleagues -- my colleagues' comments on direct loans, yes, essentially what we're doing there is taking bank profit out of that equation and allowing for families to be able to get the kinds of loans that they need for their children without having to pay additional money to add to the covers and -- coffers and the profits of banks. in the bill of medical research, the bill provides life-saving resources at the

national institute of health. the bill ensures that 7.5 million low-income households will continue to receive energy assistance. it allows states to expand critical services such as housing, home weatherization, parenting education, adult literacy classes, and emergency food assistance. mr. speaker, this bill not only reflects a commitment to our long-standing responsibilities, but this congress continues its commitment to fiscal responsibility. in addition to the investments which are made, the program includes terminations, reductions and other savings when compared to last year. totaling at $1.3 billion and $3.3 billion when compared to what the budget request was about. we will accomplish a lot of good will with this bill. i especially want to highlight and commend chairman obey for again including the reducing

the need for abortion initiative. total investment of $7.8 billion for programs such as title 10 and healthy start teen pregnancy prevention, adoption awareness, after-school programs and childcare programs for new parents attending college, just to name a few. mr. speaker, i am proud to be a member of this subcommittee. its members and the work that we do every year. we live up to our moral responsibility to promote the general well fair, care and comfort be -- welfare, care and comfort. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: this floor is home to lots of people and lots of ideas. once again, we see from a senior member of the democratic member, the word fiscal responsibility attached to this congress. incredible. secondly, we heard, and let's take the bank profits out of the equation.

once again, the dialogue from this floor is really to bankrupt this country and to kill the free enterprise system. i see it firsthand right here on the floor. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman, the ranking member of the education and labor work force, the distinguished gentleman, mr. kline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for how long? three minutes? mr. sessions: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. mr. kline: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i rise in strong opposition to this rule. yet again this congress is stifling debate and limiting opportunities for members on both sides of the aisle to have a say in how we fund vital and some not so vital spending programs. unfortunately, this time it comes at the expense of some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens. mr. speaker, i'm here because i

had hoped to debate an amendment that would benefit every school in america. . this amendment offered by mr. tiahrt of kansas and myself would have provided critical support for the individuals with disabilities education act. idea. this act was created in 1975 to help states provide a free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities. at that time, congress told the states congress would provide 40% of the excess cost of educating these students. now, almost 35 years later, that funding stands below 17% and even with the one-time spike of the stimulus bill, we fall far short of the 40%. we're overdue in keeping our promises here. we must fulfill our commitment. our amendment would have taken a small step by giving idea an

additional $1 billion this year. had it been ruled in order, this amendment would have increased funding to idea to 18.3% and meeting the obligation for the long-term. this may be seen as a small step, but mr. tiahrt and i believe it is time to put first things first and that means living up to our commitments under idea before we create and expand unnecessary programs that are contained in this bill. if we were to fully fund idea, local schools would have more money to fund their specific needs, whether recruiting new teachers, reducing class sizes and including community service. this is an amendment that should have been made in order. it is 100% germane. it addresses priorities within the confines of the jurisdiction of this bill. should we spend more money on a new program or should we meet our commitment?

we, the members of this body, all of us, ought to have the chance to say where those priorities lie. do they lie with our schools across the board? do they lie with our children with special needs or lie with some new program? that is a fair debate and one we ought to be having. perhaps the chairman, perhaps the rules committee chairman or perhaps leadership on the other side has decided what those priorities ought to be and the rest of us will have no say in making that determination. this body is supposed to have the opportunity to represent our constituents, represent our best judgment and give us a say in where those priorities are and this rule denies that. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, when i was a child, there was a radio program called "let pretend." it came on on saturday. i really enjoyed that program and i'm beginning to enjoy my

colleagues as if other days didn't exist. $12 billion was put in the exact same program that the previous speaker just spoke about just past. not one member of the republican party voted for it. come on, gang, let's stop playing "let's pretend." i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. quigley: i rise in support of the rule and in strong opposition to the pence amendment. at a time when we are consumed with discussions of expanding health care to the uninsured and improving our health care system, i find this amendment confusing. the pence amendment would effectively cut off -- 1.7 million women. aren't we trying to expand coverage, not limit it?

36% of women receiving family planning care through the title 10 program do so through planned parenthood. and let's be clear. these services do not include abortion. title 10 dollars are prohibited from being spent on abortion. the services we're talking about cutting include breast examples, testing for cervical cancer, h.i.v. screening and family planning services. planned parenthood has worked for over 90 years to educate women about pregnancy and help prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. the only medical care they will be able to receive this year is from a provider at planned parenthood. why, when we are working so diligently to reform our health care system would we take away the only source of health care to so many women?

vote no on this destructive amendment. vote no on the pence amendment. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the republican conference chairman, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. pence: i rise in opposition to the rule and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the pence amendment and i walk -- welcome to debate my colleague on the topic on the floor and will do so in an effort to alleviate what he described as his confusion about the bill. couple of basic facts. planned parenthood is the largest abortion provider in america. according to their annual report, it boasted having performed more than 300,000 abortions in this country.

another fact, planned parenthood is the largest recipient of federal funding under title 10. planned parenthood received approximately $350 million in government grants and contracts. the pence amendment before the congress today simply states none of the funds made available under this act shall be available to planned parenthood for any purpose under title 10 of the public health services act. the largest abortion provider in america should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under title 10 as i believe a majority of the american people would attest. the time has come to deny all federal funding to planned parenthood of america. and now the case for that. the public health services act was first nacted in 1946 and in 1970.

it included the creation of title 10. title 10 is the only federal grant program that provides americas with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health care services. as my colleague just said, let me echo. title 10 does provide a broad range of important and quality services to the underserved community in this country. over four million americans are served. 600,000 abortions are prevented by title 10 and it's reassuring to us that abstinence education is required at all clinics. the pence amendment does not cut or reduce the budget for family planning by one penny. let me say that again to my colleagues in the majority. i am grateful today to have been extended the opportunity to bring this amendment. the pence amendment does not cut one penny from the budget of

title 10. also, let me make a very clear point. i understand that current law and regulation prevents title 10 funds going directly to fund abortions, as my colleague just said. but there's no question that money planned parenthood receives for its operational expenses from the federal government free up resources that can be used to provide and promote abortions through its abortion clinics. common sense teaches no other idea. so these are important points as i rise and urge what i believe will be bipartisan support for this amendment. i believe it echoes the views of millions of americans on the point as well. we could talk about the role planned parenthood plays in the abortion trade in this country. we could talk about the real scandal of the fact that one out of every two african-american

pregnancies end in abortion. we could talk about allegations of fraud and investigation. the time has come to deny all federal funding to planned parenthood. we have the opportunity to do it today. i urge adoption of the pence amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to my good friend, the gentleman from california, a member of the subcommittee on labor, health and human services and education, mr. honda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: thank you, mr. speaker. just a little bit concerned about information that's being shared with the public and to the media about the student loans and the criticism about eliminating the fact that banks and other financial institutions were being eliminated from this ability to provide direct student loans to our students and charging them interest

rates. as a teacher and as a person who used to receive student loans, that is really misleading the public when we say they are being put out of business, when the federal government subsidizes these banks and financial institutions to provide the student loans and adding on top of that, the subsidy, they're going to charge an interest to the students where these banks and financial institutions will be making money on federal dollars than a on the backs of students. that is so wrong and i think that has to be clarified. so i just wanted to make that clarification not only as a person who used to receive student loans, but also as a teacher who wants to make sure that our students get a fair break and taxpayers get a fair break. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. graves: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this proposed rule. i don't know what it is about open debate and process that some leaders in this house fear so much. the house of representatives is considering an appropriation bill under a closed rule. in fact, yesterday we learned that the option or at least the health care option isn't off the table because neither the speaker or nor the chairman have the votes to pass their health bill. my own amendment to today's bill that i offered was rejected because it didn't violate a single rule of the house but because the speaker doesn't want members to protect small business from mandates and tax increases. the message is loud and clear to me. the majority has no plans in protecting small businesses and any health care plan that comes to this floor. this is unacceptable. and the bha the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. leadership's game of hide and seek can only last so long.

sooner or later when health care legislation comes to the floor, members of this body are going to have to make a decision, they are either going to vote to increase taxes and force everybody into a government-run health care plan or have to vote it down. mr. speaker, i strongly urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for our nation's small businesses by voting against this rule. i appreciate the opportunity and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i inquire if he has any additional speakers. i'm the last speaker on this side. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman asking, i do have additional speakers. mr. hastings: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. sessions: i will allow the gentleman to yield his final time. i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from arizona is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. flake: i want to clarify something that was said earlier. the gentleman from rules committee suggested that i tied up the legislative counsel's office by filing 540 amendments to the defense appropriation bill. in truth, we went to the legislative counsel's office because we were concerned about that. and they worked with us so that we could draft all of those amendments and they didn't have to do any of them. we didn't consume any of their time. and if the gentleman has other information, i would ask him, please to say so. but i think to suggest that we're doing that is unfair to the legislative counsel. they work hard and do a great job. and second, unfair to my staff who has worked a long time late into the night to do that. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hastings: when i stood before, evidently you were

distracted and didn't hear, and i appreciate the fact that you took that burden off of legislative counsel and i said perhaps you ought consider taking that burden off your staff as well. mr. flake: i appreciate it. they deserve a lot of credit. the chairman of the appropriations committee chairman was mentioning the process that i have gone through. and i would like our representative from the rules committee who it seems controls what goes on in the rules committee, but why my unanimous consent request simply to swap amendments that were germane like for example on financial services, the amendment to protect broadcaster freedom was not allowed. it came within the time constraints. it was germane and even offered last year and passed by an overwhelming margin. why would unanimous consent not received to swap that?

i would ask either the gentleman from rules committee or the gentleman from appropriations committee. . mr. hastings: i believe, if will the gentleman yield? mr. flake: yes. mr. hastings: it was not made in order under the rule. and toward that end, i think that's your answer. one of the things i keep hearing is -- mr. flake: i retain my time. there was another one. i ask unanimous consent to swap one of my amendments for the d.c. voucher amendment in d.c. again, it fell within the time constraints. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i thank the chair. mr. sessions: i think the gentleman, mr. flake, makes the point that we have to beg the rules committee for over 220 years has been appropriate on this floor. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman

from iowa, the dished gentleman, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding and for his relentless work on the rules committee that has taken on a responsibility that goes beyond what was anticipated by the founding fathers or the tradition of this house. 229 years, 229 years and members are reduced to sitting in tiny little chairs with their elbows tucked inside their waistline not having room for their own staff to come to the room, sending emails out to the staff in order to get a piece of paper in that you might need to beg the rules committee to allow for an open debate here on the floor of the house of representatives. this is the deconstruction of deliberative democracy. this usurps 229 years of tradition in this house, and it muzzles members of the united states congress and disenfranchises the people on this side of the aisle, especially, that represent over 600,000 people. i have offered -- the number goes upwards of 40 amendments to the rules committee.

only two have been allowed to come to the floor, both of them passed. in 2007, the last time we had a legitimate open rules process under appropriations, i offered something like 12 amendments, nine of them passed. i don't think anybody in this congress was more successful than passing amendments than i have been myself. but my constituents have been muzzled by this. today, my amendment that was offered that would have cut off funding to the criminal enterprise, acorn, in light of this report that came out of the government reform committee that is about 82 pages long and now lists 361 entities that are affiliated with acorn and claims that there has been systemic fraud, that they have created a paper wall, that they are a criminal conspiracy, that they've laundered federal money, that they've manipulated the elections and the electorate of the united states of america, that they have evaded taxes, that they have obstructed justice, that they have covered up embezzlement of $948,607.50, embezzled by the

brother of the founder, and covered it up for eight years. the gross abuse of tax laws is affiliated with that and other bookkeeping procedures. the documents they have from insiders, the definitive evidence that is here. in amendment needs to be allowed and this rule needs to be voted down. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, republicans are on the floor today asking the question, where are the jobs, and what about the process? the ability to come and talk on this floor about issues and ideas, ideas that these members have. i was reminded again today, and looking at "congressional daily" dated friday, july 24, and while i was talking about health care, it's really a philosophy. and they're quoting the house rules committee chairman, luis slaughter of new york -- louise slaughter of new york, and i'll quote what's in here.

we can do anything up there in the rules committee. we can do anything. what that really means is they can do whatever they want to do. evidently speaker pelosi really does run the rules committee. we can do anything up there, even muzzle all the members of this floor. mr. speaker, i'll be asking for a no vote on the previous question so we can amend for this muzzle rule and allow for an open rule. there's no question that the majority rule will only submit the dangerous precedent that the majority set earlier this year, every single appropriations bill. it will only damage bipartisanship and really the nature of this body. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so we can allow free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the right of millions of americans, but perhaps more than that, just the members of congress who comes here and do this work every day. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to

the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: and i urge a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule. mr. speaker, members of congress need to get this. every single one of us can say no to the way this body is being run and just put us on a different course, a course that we have had for all these years . we recognize what open and honest and ethical government is. and today we had members of this body come to the floor and talk about openness, about ethics and about the ability of this body to run as it has in its entire history. we, republicans, don't understand why this big change. we do understand why we are in a deep recession. we do understand obama -- president obama has an economic problem because he has helped

create that. and we do understand obama economics are about destroying the free enterprise system of this country on behalf of government. what we don't get is why can't members of congress openly debate this issue, vote for it and have openness and ethics at the same time. mr. speaker, i'm going to vote no, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i take just one moment to make it very clear that there's nothing that's being done by the president of the united states or this congress that is going to destroy the free enterprise system in the united states of america. the free enterprise system cannot be destroyed by any of us. the proposals that are being

offered on a variety of measures and particularly this one increases opportunity for the least of us and those in the middle that have been hit the hardest by our colleagues on the other side. they can name it anything they want to. it doesn't has to be class warfare. people can come up here and talk all they please. middle-class americans have carried the weight of this country for a substantial period of time. now, we're in two wars, and we find ourselves in a position of having to try to write an economy that allows among other things that we have taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit. that is irrefutable. president obama has been in office six months. let's give him a little bit more time. let's give this democratic congress the time as we are undertaking right now to do something that hasn't been done in quite a while and that is to complete the appropriations process which is our principle

work here on behalf of the american people. mr. speaker, for years republicans thought they could ignore our children, ignore the poor, ignore the middle class, ignore the unemployed and ignore the uninsured. and somehow our nation would magically prosper. footnote right there, all these people that keep talking about health care, all these folks say that we can't do health care, i've been here 17 years and we haven't done it. one thing i know is for sure, if we do nothing health insurance rates will rise and the cost of health care will increase. well, mr. speaker, now we are seeing the repercussions of the philosophy of the past. our economy is in grave distress. everybody knows that. millions of -- are out of work. my colleagues ask, where are the jobs in there is no one in the house of representatives that would not do anything and

everything that he or she could to ensure that every american is employed. much of what's in these programs will help many of those americans. and our nation's schools are falling further behind than their overseas counterparts right in our face and have been, and these are the people that said leave no children behind. they not only left them behind, they lost them and couldn't find them. now as my republican colleagues continue to play politics with this measure, i remind them we are facing grave problems in this country. we must put the empty divisive rhetoric aside and pass the bill so that we can provide real relief for those struggling in this economy. by suring up our nation's health and social safety nets, by protecting our work force and increasing access to the education and training opportunities that are vital to our country's long-term

economic recovery and success. and, no, america, no free enterprise is going to be lost, and, no, america, there is no reason to fear. the fear would come from the people that caused us to be in this position in the first place. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. sessions: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to a question of the privileges of the house and offer the resolution previously noticed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: whereas the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3288, the transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act, 2010. whereas the said the gentleman's amendment would have required that none of the funds made available in this act be used to establish, issue, implement, administer or enforce any prohibition or restriction on the otherwise lawful possession or use of firearms in federally assisted housing. whereas the second amendment of the united states constitution guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be enfrigid. whereas the second amendment applies to all americans regardless of who owns or pays for their housing.

whereas the gentleman's amendment implied with all applicable rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process but regrettably the house democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this floor. and whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, the democratic leadership and the chairman of the committee on appropriations, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now, therefore, be it resolved that house resolution 669, the rule to accompany h.r. 3288, be amended to allow the gentleman from georgia's amendment to be considered and voted on in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this house operates under specific rules, specific rules that are incorporated by precedent --

the speaker pro tempore: argument on why the resolution qualifies? mr. price: i do, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this house operates under rules or it's supposed to operate under rules. rules that have been long-standing in this house and that are incorporated in written form. and rule 9 of those rules of the house states specifically, and i quote, members may raise questions, quote, affecting the rights of the house collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings and those affecting the rights of members individually in their representative capacity, unquote. so the question is, mr. speaker, what is more fundamental to the rights of the members of this house than the ability to represent their constituents and to effect the legislation that's brought to the floor? the democraticic majority under speaker pelosi has

unilaterally, some would say brazenly, some would say repressively, allow any member to suspend a spending bill. the speaker pro tempore: his remarks must be confined to the question of order to wit why the resolution has precedent over questions under rule 9. mr. price: and that's precisely what i'm attempting to do, mr. speaker. when my constituents sent me here to congress they didn't send me here to push buttons. they sent me here to exercise every single ability that a member of the house is granted. and one of the abilities that the member of the house is granted is the opportunity to affect legislation. and under rule 9, which states, mr. speaker, that the proceed united states should not affect the rights of the individuals -- members individually in their capacity. so to being able to offer an amendment does not affect the rights of the house, if it does

not affect the rights and integrity of the proceedings, if it doesn't affect the rights, my rights as a representative, then i don't know what does, mr. speaker. i don't know what does. if members are not allowed to offer amendments, then the member, him or herself is being said, told to be unable to represent their constituents and consequently is disenfranchising every single american. so, mr. speaker, i would contend, respectfully, that the inability of members to offer amendments is an indignity upon the house and makes it so that members are not able to exercise their representative capacity, and i appeal to the chair to see the light of day and allow this privileged resolution to move forward. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to rule. in evaluating the resolution offered by the gentleman from georgia under the standards of rule 9, the chair must be mindful of a fundamental principle limited by precedent in section 706 of the house rules and manual.

to wit that a question of the privilege of the house may not be invoked to prescribe a special order of business for the house. the chair finds that the resolution offered by the gentleman from georgia by proposing directly to amend house resolution 669 prescribes a special order of business. under a long and well established settle -- line of precedent, presently culminating in several rulings during this first session of the 111th congress, such a resolution cannot qualify as a question of the privileges of the house. the chair therefore holds that the resolution is not privileged under rule 9 for consideration ahead of business. instead, the resolution may be submitted through the hopper in the regular course. mr. price: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house. .

mr. hastings: i move to table the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it. mr. price: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro ker pro tempore yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to lay the appeal on the table will be followed by five-minute votes on ordering the previous question on house resolution 673, adopting house

resolution 673, if ordered, suspending the rules on house resolution 538, house resolution 285 and house resolution 519, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

five pizza parlors which had applied to the federal government to be hiv aids transfusion centers and we're getting paid for hiv/aids transfusions even though they were a pizza parlor. terry williams, the head of the center for medicaid and medicare services, told me in december about a case that he does run a cross -- ran across where a patient -- a doctor filed four colonoscopy is on vacation in the same day. i hope that is fraud.

there is a new book out of the product and out and in hard cover in late august called "stopped paying the crooks" and it has 13, authors and it outlined systematically how we can save money on fraud and basically theft in medicare and medicaid. host: let me go back to that specifically because you take aim at congressman waxman in the together. -- in particular. guest: start with a simple fact,

when you hear someone telling you that the government is a very low-cost administrator, had been the cost of that, and in fact the government is the most administrator of health care in the united states. but what they do is they pay anyone who sends a claim inaccurate -- a claim in. the billions of dollars in fraud and they do not count that as costs. they say, we are really inexpensive because we write checks very well. that is true, but they don't find out whether the check ought to be written. second, we have outlined this at the center for health transformation. we are at the middle of a dramatic revolution in our ability to deliver high-quality health care. this is why the mayo clinic came out against the plan that was in the house. that is where three former heads of the american medical association wrote an article yesterday opposing the plan in the house. we need a focus on best practices where we know if you

can migrate the country to best practices, you will save billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars because the very best places in america deliver better care at a lower cost with better outcomes so people live longer lives more independently. that should be what we want to that should be what we want to and at the center for health transformation, go to healthtransformation.net and there is an entire set of proposals. we would love to work with the president and get a positive bill through. and i think by going to a very liberal government tax model, they have made it very hard to pass a bill. host: wayne is on the phone from connecticut. good morning, wayne. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. gingrich. i do not know how you can lower costs and give 9 million people coverage.

and the gentleman who was just on, i wanted to talk to him and asked him if his wife did not take a raise, congress voted themselves a raise. we're losing 14,000 jobs a day, supposedly. is that because the stimulus bill is not working? and in this bill that is going through, there is a billion dollars worth of earmarks supposedly in it -- there is $8 billion worth of earmarks supposedly in it. i have insurance through my work and it is 11 under dollars per person with insurance, paying for this -- $1,100 per person with interest, paying for this, why can't we get heáhp

health tax is going to be very destructive behavior. it will make unemployment worse and poverty for employment and slower and lumber and weaker. i agree with you, the bill coming from the house is designed by the. and frankly, the reason you're getting these set-asides and your art is in an effort to buy votes. -- and earmarks is in an effort to buy votes. this is a 600 page bill. they wrote a 300 page amendment that they filed at 3:00 a.m. to get just enough votes to pass it and they voted on at the next afternoon. virtually no one had not read

the amendment before they voted on it. i suspect something like 1000 pages. maybe we will not get 500 pages of 5:00 a.m. to get enough votes, but that is a terrible way to legislate. this is not a game, this is not canned speaker nanci glos the ramp something true? these are laws that chged all of our lives over a very long time friend. we ought to be negotiating them and legislating them out in the open and carefully and with a lot of opportunities for people to have better ideas and to have amendments and to try to approve it before it becomes law. host: our guest is professor gingrich. çhe earned his doctorate from tulane university and author of 18 books? guest: yeah, so far. host: [laughter] so far. we would go to maryland, good morning. caller: good morning, i'm very nervous.

i had a kidney transplant last year at johns hopkins. i have insurance through my husband's job, plus i'm 67 years old, so i do have medicaid, medicare. my question is this, i feel the republicans, that is you, too -- do not care about the people out here. the poor people, that i consider myself poor and i was a nurse for 47 years. my husband is a teacher. but my point is this, you have your insurance, you are getting a good salary, and you do not care about the average person out here. what did you do when you were in there? we have been talking about health care for over 40 something years and we cannot get this problem solved. guest: look, i think this is probably one of the most complicated problems we have faced as a country.

when i was speaker, i chaired the medicare reform task force and we worked on making sure that everybody could continue to get medicare and it would not go broke within 10 or 12 years. when i was speaker, we also passed a bill to insure that -- to ensure that you could continue to get health insurance after you gave up your job during a time of unemployment. we also agreed held savings account to enable people to have a low-cost, high savings rate product that would allow small businesses and the self- employed to buy insurance. if i could have, if we would have had the votes, we would have passed more reforms. when i stepped down as speaker, i helped form the center for health transformation. we are a membership organization that has people from all parts of the health system. we have a number a tremendous breakthrough ideas we are developing, including an alzheimer's solution project that will save millions of lives

over the next generation. we agree with you, we think that there ought to be a health system in which all americans have the opportunity to buy health care, but we wanted to be a 300 million pairs system in which every american is in charge of their health care and has the right to choose their doctor and their hospital, not a bureaucrat. if you go to helptransformation.net you will see that we have a lot of ideas people like you. i have worked with the senators for quality health care for the elderly who might end up in the long term facilities. and along with justice sandra day o'connor, will lead the alzheimer's -- wheat led the all-time citigroup that develops some very big proposals with halts -- we led the break there

is the developed some very big proposals with alzheimer's. i was with governor pawlenty in minnesota about a week ago and we went to the university of minnesota, which has a world- class stem cells center, and we met with them -- this particular facility focus on diabetes and trying to find solutioa solutioo violent development. their exit taking cells from -- they're actually taking cells and they are finding that they can get cells from newborn babies and no one is hurt. you take a small number of cells and it has become a very useful system. in addition, they took some cells from the skin of an 83- year-old woman. the reason is, they would like to be able to take a cell from you and grow into a stem cell.

if they transplant-- this lady had trouble with her kidneys. if they could grow a kidney from yourself from your skin, that would lower the likelihood of your body rejecting it. it is an amazing breakthrough in research. i give governor pawlenty and a lot of credit for having supported the development of very reece -- barry and research facilities in minnesota. host: greg is on the phone from amherst, new york. caller: good morning, how are you? i have three things for you. one at a time? caller: i have never bought one of your books, but give me quickly the reason you bought this particular book at that particular time? and i have one or two other quick ones. host: we will come back to you. guest: i wanted to outline the kind of changes we need to get us back on the right track and

get as growing economically to solve our major problems. the new edition that just came out in paperback has an entire section describing the obama administration and bringing it right of today. host: and a list of books and some of the web addresses that he has been talking available -- talking about are available through newt.org. and your follow-up? caller: my name is greg laughlin, and from the beginning when he was senator obama rahman in the primaries -- running in the primaries, i wanted to call c-span. senator obama, if he became president, i wanted to know what his attitude would be towards reparations, either pay -- payments or other programs or whatever. i was called a racist on

television whenever i brought that up. and now, this issue with the president answer in cambridge, i want a fuller discussion of the president's attitude were, what he could do for the black community with the history of this country. we had very little discussion about that, and now, this president i'm afraid might have some problems with 1000 cuts. guest: this morning, there is a story about the president posey, i think, best initiative to help african-americans and that is a very aggressive school reform program that he is working on and i have agreed to help it secretary arne

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 328 the nays are 182. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. pursuant to the chair's announcement of earlier today, the house will now observe a moment of silence in memory of officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john m. gibson. will all please rise for a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the

vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution, r. hes 673, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 96, house resolution 3293, making and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempro tempore: question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 239, the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yeas have it --

mr. sessions: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 232, the nays are 187. the resolution is adopted. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rulets and agreeing to house resolution 538 as amended. the clerk: house resolution 538, resolution supporting olympic day and an couraging the international olympic committee to select chicago, illinois as the host city for the 2016 olympic games. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of

the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 285, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 285, resolution congratulating the people of the republic of lithuania on its 1,anniversary. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution

519. the clerk: resolution expressing appreciation to the people and government of canada for their long history of friendship and cooperation with the people and government of the united states and congratulating canada as it celebrates canada day. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title to h. res. 538 is amended. . for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on h.r. 3293. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 673 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3293. the chair appoints the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. holden to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3293, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriationers in departments of labor, health and human service, and education and related agencies, ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. obey and the gentleman from kansas, mr. tiahrt, each will control 30 minutes. the committee will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. members please remove themselveses from the well. -- remove themselves from the well.

members please take their conversations off the floor. will members in the center aisle take their conversations off the floor.

the chair: the committee is not in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. obey: mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from wisconsin deserves to be heard. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i want to thank mr. tiahrt and every member of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for the work that they put in in

bringing this bill to the floor today. it's a controversial bill, i know we've had a lot of disagreements, but i think the disagreement has not been disagreeable,nd i appreciate that very much. i want to thank rebecca mot lee, susan smith, steven steegler, amy vitalia, albert lee, and on the minority side, steve crain, stephanie myers, and amy for all the work put into this bill. mr. chairman, this country has pushed a lot of money, government money, taxpayers' money into the financial sector of the economy and wall street the last few months in order to try to stabilize the economy. is is the bill that tries to deal with the problem -- >> will the gentleman --

mr. obey: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the committee is not in order. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: i thank the chairman. it's a pleasure to be here with you today, this morning, as we continue to consider the fiscal year 2010 labor, h.h.s., education appropriations bill. instead of performing my duties as a ranking member, my role requires that i protest the way the debate is suppressed on this bill. it's necessary but not something i relish. usually the role of the ranking member on the appropriation committees and the authorizing committees is to present the views of the minority and work with the majority in crafting a

bill that includes best ideas of both sides. we do this through the amendment process. as ranking member, i have not always agreed with what my colleagues on the other side proposed but i always defended their right to offer amendments. i do want to thank chairman obey for reaching out to me during the drafting of this bill. he is a passionate advocate for the programs in this bill and he's put a great deal of thought in this bill. and i want to thank him for putting together a bill include manage thingsern can support, yet due to the unsustainable allocations, we could not agree on the final product. i want to thank the staff for their dedication to this important bill. sheryl smith, susan quantas, mic gentilly, on my side, stephanie meier, amay claire

brush from my person staff. the first objective to is to determine the role of the federal government. the power of the purse. this is what we're here to do today. with the labor-h.l.s. appropriations bill. yet instead of being able to have an open discussion, members, both republican and democrat are shut out of the process and only permitted to speak for a short time without the ability to offer alternatives. several of my colleagues and i submitted amendments for consideration on the floor today. i think they are substantive amendment this is a deal with the public policy issues our constituents sent us here to debate. even though they met the requirements for consideration on an appropriations act, the democrat leadership decided to report a gag rule that severely limits our ability to offer them. when we first started down this

road to ruin with respect to autocratic rules that govern debates on appropriations bills, we were told that these rules are required because republicans were filibustering by amendment. and because we would not commit to time limits. we knew at the time these were mere fig leaves. over the past few weeks, the evidence has become crystal clear. we were told we had to finish our work quickly so time agreements were essential. next we were told we had done nothing to limit our amendments. strangely, when we were in the majority we didn't amendments to appropriations bill -- we didn't limit amendments to appropriations bills why? because we believe members have the right and the constitutional responsibility to represent their constituents. even so, while we were stating our continued concern about the restrictive rules by which we have been forced to abide, on this bill, we reached out in good faith. instead of offering upwards of 50 amendments, house

republicans in good faith limited the amendments request. this year, there were fewer republican amendments offered on this very substantial bill than were offered under an open rule a few years ago. republicans offered 12. only 12 amendments. did some of those amendments pose potentially difficult votes for 2ke78s? i guess so. we -- for democrats? i guess system of we had an amendment that would have been in order under the open rule to prohibit democrats from killing the largest student loan program in operation today. it is permitted to be offered today -- is it permitted? no. we have an amendment by mr. lewis, the ranking republican of the appropriations committee, again in order under the standard rules of the house if operating under the procedure this is a allow the american people full representation. the amendment would have permitted the secretary of health and human services from starting a government-run health insurance plan. it was ruled by the parliamentarians to be

permissible under the standing house rules. is mr. lewis offering his amendment today? no. why not? the democrats don't want to vote on socialized medicine. probably because their leadership and their constituents don't agree how they should vote. as ranking republican on the subcommittee, i had an amendment that would have done nothing other than codify the nonbinding language the majority included in the so-called stimulus bill with respect to using comparative effectiveness research as an excuse to ration health care. was i permitted to offer it? no. as i traveled through the state of kansas and talked to people who sent me here, most kansans, and i think most americans, wonder if this congress and administration understand the long-term ramifications of the massive spending spree we've been on since january. the stimulus bill was nearly $800 billion, money we don't have. when you add the interest we have to pay to the chinese who

buy our debt, the cost will exceed $1 trillion. what do we have to show for that exercise? unemployment has hit 9.5% nationwide and is expected to rise above 10%. some states are already well over 10% unemployment. if this is recovery, then it is a jobless recovery. who does that help? we have massive amounts of money spent on programs, many funded by the agencies in this bill, that are maybe good in the term but have absolutely nothing to do with bringing this country out of the economic crisis we're facing today. what it did do is create a mountain of spending that will hit next year and create the cliff effect. cliff effect. at the time, president and the democrats in the majority claimed this was one-time spending that will drop off after 2011. i'd like to believe that's true because if it isn't this bill will cost about $220 billion or $60 billion above where we are today. which is about a 40% increase. i suppose that would be ok if

we had an extra $60 billion laying around in the treasury, though i would prefer to give it back to those who work sod hard to earn it. but the fact is we do not have this money. it is borrowed. it is borrowed from the american people and their future earnings and it is borrowed from foreign governments like china. next week, we consider the health reform bill that looks like it's going to cost well over $1 trillion. and it is full of provision this is a instruct a congressional budget office to overlook the spending. we had a budget submitted by the white house this year that for the first time exceeded $3.5 trillion in total spending. the white house is apparently so worried about letting the american people know how much of their money is being spent that they have delayed the traditional mid year budget review, which is expected to show a historic deficit. it's delayed until next month, when congress has left washington, and while many americans are on vacation. those that can afford it this year, anyway.

i want to make clear to the american people what exactly we are voting on here today. it's $163 billion in discretionary allocation and an $11 billion increase from fiscal year 2009. but that's about 7% increase. but the true cost to the american taxpayer has to include $126 billion that was allocated for those agent agencies in the stimulus -- those agencies in the stimulus act. in reality, they have grown by $135.3 billion or 93% increase over two years. 93%. my colleagues and i were prepared, as is historically done in this body to hold the spending to levels we can afford, move from overfunded programs to underfunded programs, like special education. but we are prohibited by the democrat leadership from doing so today. in addition to the excessive spending in the bill, we have other concerns.

first and foremost, though the distinguished chairman has told us this in -- told us in committee that this has nothing to do with the health care reform bill, the democrat majority is crafting the committee report for this bill that they're crafting, includes language that tells a different story. it acknowledges this bill is setting the foundation for implementing health care reform and acknowledges the stimulus bill does, as i argued then. i quote, the committee continues the investments begun in the recovery act to expand the capacity of the health care system to handle increased demand that will come from health care reform. end of quote. so indeed, it is important for us to talk about health care reform proposals. . i do not think there is a member of this body who denies the importance of reforming our health care system.

we have serious problem with regard to cost, access and rationing and even to the point where it will be threatened. my biggest concern with the democrat proposals is the ration ing of health care. the obama administration has set the framework with comparativeness effective research. who is going to be affected and by using comparative if he cantiveness to do so. it is those with the most to lose. although they deny this, the government does in medicaid, medicare and tricare. forcing us into a public health plan is not what the american people want. what they need and want is medical decisions made by patients and physicians, not unelected government bureaucrats. congressional democrats are campaigning for a nationalized health care proposal that includes $800 billion in new tax

increases. it's estimated this plan will result in 4.7 million workers losing their jobs as a result of tax hikes on businesses. businesses will face further operating costs. jobs will be cut and americans will be left with fewer choices and lower quality health care. having seen the failed results of the administration's so-called economic stimulus plan, the last thing americans need is to have democrat leaders nationalizing our health care system. reforms are needed and republicans have offered to work with the democrats in creating a bipartisan solution, but so far our efforts have been ignored by speaker pelosi and president obama. we have offered a plan to promote new jobs to enhance the growth in our economy that does not strangle the already facilitiering economy. most importantly, any health care plan should offer americans freedom through expanded access and increased quality. my colleagues and i tried to

offer amendments today that would have prevented the department of health and human services from using tax dollars to implement policies that would ration care. that would have prevented a burden on small businesses and threatened an advisory board accountable to no one. or it would have prevented americans being forced into a public plan instead of private insurance. these are extremely important protections that h.h.s. is moving towards already doing and more with the stimulus funds as well as expected funds for next year. i say we are not obstructionists, however we believe it is important to preserve the integrity of this body and have a full and important discussion on the funding levels in this bill. it was important for me to take time to explain to the american people why there is constant debate on this bill.

we are not being silent, but simply being gagged. there is a better way to provide services included in this bill. i believe there are ways to provide health care to all americans without rationing and without americans losing their jobs. there is a way that keeps doctors and patients in control of their health care and there is a way to rebuild our economy without borrowing money to do it. today, we won't have access to these solutions, that debate and those votes were prevented by the majority. and because of that, the american people will suffer. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i rise to enter into a colloquy with mr. polis. mr. polis: i thank the chairman and his attention to the energy employees occupational illness occupation program. this bill provides the necessary resources to better serve seriously ill former nuclear

energy workers and we appreciate the committee's work to make that happen. we hope this program will expand in the coming year and will serve former nuclear energy workers in the process. thank you, and i yield back. mr. obey: i yield to mr. perlmutter. mr. perlmutter: as we work with the department of labor on needed reforms, we hope that the committee will continue to work with us and o.m.b. to ensure that this program continues provide benefits to seriously ill individuals and that the e.e.o.c. ombudsman office continues to have the resources it needs to maintain its important oversight responsibilities over this program. i thank the gentleman. and i yield back. mr. obey: i thank both gentlemen for their efforts on this issue. the committee will work with the gentlemen, the committee and the department of o.m.b. to preserve beneficiaries and the ombudsman office copts to have the resources it needs to properly fulfill its oversight

responsibilities. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: i would like to yield two minutes to the the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. camp: i intend to vote against this bill, but i want to recognize and highlight one section, and that is ensuring workers continue to get promised regular and extended unemployment benefits and states are able to keep paying those benefits. the democrat economic policy has resulted in record job loss and record deficits and none of the job creation they promised but american workers should not pay for the mix takes and failures of the democrats' so-called stimulus bill. we reached another record in the number of workers collecting unemployment checks instead of pay checks and the unemployment rate is heading to 15% and is at

15% in my home state. the americans can see the record unemployment but cannot see where the jobs are. the president and administration officials recently suggested their stimulus plan is working as intended and helping the economy recover, well, it's not. the bill before us proves that. since president obama was sworn in, the nation's public debt and unemployment has risen by a shocking 40% and that's before trillions of dollars in additional spending under the democrat stimulus, energy and health plans and whatever higher unemployment lies ahead. the bill reflects the continued failure of their economic policy to save or create millions of jobs they say would come from their stimulus bill. republicans offered a plan that would have provided twice the jobs at half the costs. it disappointing that it was rejected and the bill before us where congress is bailing out is

yet another reminder of the bill democrats wrote behind closed doors and forced through congress. given the amendments as the ranking member articulated that were not allowed, i can only hope this bill comes back from the senate improved. mr. speaker, we must help those who need help, but it would be nice if the congress would provide them a job not another unemployment check. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: i thank chairman and ranking member tiahrt for their hard work. overall, this is an excellent bill which includes increases to pell grants, n.i.h., family planning services and after-school programs, just to name a few. despite the positive provisions before us, i'm disappointed that

the bill eliminates the safe and drug-free schools and community state grants. the community-based coalitions in white plains, to name one are working tirelessly to reduce drug abuse among people. i hope to work through this process. despite this concern, the bill takes big steps towards addressing some of our nation's most pressing challenges. i'm proud to support it and i encourage my colleagues to do so and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman from kansas has 14 minutes and the gentleman from wisconsin has 26 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. tiahrt: i would like to yield as much time as he chooses to consume, mr. lewis. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. lewis: let me congratulate david obey and mr. tiahrt for their fine work. they are agreeing to disagree on many of the key issues but worked hard at the subcommittee level. mr. speaker, the labor-h.h.s. spending bill, we will consider today, is an appropriations bill that involves a very significant level of funding. by now we all know how important it is to chairman obey to complete each of the spending bills by the end of july. it's almost a badge of courage for him to go into the august recess saying, i did my job. the house appropriations committee has completed its work. to some extent, i know how he feels. on june 30 of 2005, mr. obey and i celebrated the passage of all of the fiscal year 2006 spending bills with our bipartisan staff

just across the hall from the house chamber. andford, each of those spending bills was considered on this floor under an open rule with unlimited opportunity for members of both parties to offer and debate amendments. today, the house is under different management and clearly, we're on a different path. in 2005, there were 27 amendments offered on the house floor during consideration of the labor-h.h.s. bill and it took a total of 14 hours over two days to complete our work. today, only five amendments have been made in order and we will conveniently complete our work in time for late lunch. until today, every single floor amendment allowed by the majority on every spending bill

considered thus far -- they have been limited to 10 minutes of debate time. that is until now. members on both sides of the aisle may be interested to know that the rules committee has generously allotted 20 minutes for the consideration of amendments today, an amendment to be offered by chairman obey himself and sadly as other members are shut out of the process time and time again, chairman obey is an exception to the rule. next week the house will have passed each spending bill. every member of this body knows that the majority leadership has only been able to achieve its goal by pursuing a distorted road map, stifling any and all meaningful debate throughout the process. to me, it's a legislative slight of hand that obligates -- obliterates the right of every american and undermines the institution we all purport to love. a few years ago, a very talented

baseball player barry bonds took a short cut to break the home run record. this was a ball player with a tremendous natural talent and great skill that on its own, could have achieved greatness. but because he took the easy way out, he undermined his own credibility and the magnitude of that record-breaking performance. barry bonds felt then as the majority leadership seems to feel today that the ends justify the means. in the mind's eye of the public, barry bonds achievement was illegitimate and as an aster risk was placed next to his name in the record books and the record-breaking ball, barry bonds never recovered and i fear neither will this committee or this congress as this majority leadership copts to add to the

mountain of debt on a daily basis, it's important to remind the american people that each of the spending bills are being completed this year in many the same manner as barry bonds setting the home run record. the majority leadership is taking short cuts to pass these bills, an achievement they apparently could not attain within the rules. as a result, the rules committee has become, to chairman obey, what steroids became to barry bonds, a ticket to the hall of fame that is merely an means to an epped. i do not hold all of my friends on the majority side responsible because many of them feel as i do. i believe most of my friends would prefer to return to the time-honored practices and traditions of our committee. i know many of them have grown

weary of the arm twisting and the restrictions to oppose every republican amendment offered in our full committee. i don't know if or when our committee will ever return to the old days, but i do know that when the history of the fiscal year 2010 budget process is written, it will be noted, as with barry bonds, as aster risk that spending bills were completed under a completely illegitimate process. the lesson learned in this to this majority leadership, the ends do justify the means, anything to accomplish the goal regardless of the rules of the house. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to mr. kennedy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. kennedy: chairman obey, i want to commend you for the hard work you put into this bill which shows a strong commitment to america's seniors, children, families and others most in need. i want to thank you for increasing funding for n.i.h., c.d.c., and samsa. this bill move ours nation forward, provides $500 million over the president's budget for the national institutes of health so the n.i.h. can move us closer to the cures we all wait for. when it comes to public and preventive health this bill move ours nation forward. it provides increases to help professions and nursing education and for the very serious public health and national security crisis posed by the h1n1 avian flu, this bill prepares us for that threat. when it comes to mental health and substance abuse services, this bill moves us forward, in particular, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for funding a

new initiative regarding the effects of the economic downturn on mental health called the community resilience initialtive. through this funding, mr. chairman, we're going to be able to design a health program that meets our public's mental health resilience needs in a time of economic downturn and very strong public stress. in my state of-ahead, with 12% unemployment and a state of budget crisis, my people and our couldn't rip's needs are very much greater because of this pressure, not only on our economy, but on the public at large personally. for that, i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for these increases in funding. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. tiahrt: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey 2 minutes.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> it's time to take a second look at planned parenthood. i ask members to support the pence amendment which will be offered later on no child is safe in a planned parenthood clinic, that goes for the preborn child waiting to be born or a 15-year-old girl being tole she's entitled to a secret abortion. each year, planned parenthood aborts more than 305,000 unborn children with poison pills or dismemberment. that's a quarter of all abortions performed in america. a staggering loss of children's lives that years to date now exceeds over five million dead babies, all by just one organization. planned parenthood aggressively lobbies and litigates against every modest restriction proven to significantly reduce abortions. planned parenthood lobbies and litigates against women's right to know laws, waiting periods,

and parental involvement statutes, even though the latter have been shown to reduce abortions among teenage girls by between 19% and 31%. planned parenthood lobbies against prohibitions on taxpayer 23u7bding for abortions, even though planned parenthood's research shows funding bans reduce abortions between 20% and 35%. millions of childrens live today -- millions of children live today because public funds weren't available to effect their demise. it is time, mr. speaker, to take a second look at planned parenthood. it's time to understand the irreparable harm planned parent parenthood is doing to the children of america, both born and unborn. i yield back the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished

gentlewoman from minnesota. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to start by thanking chairman obey for crafting a bill that meets the needs of children, family, and seniors and communities for today and tomorrow. this shows a new era of partnership between the congress and white house for the success of all our country's citizens. i'd like to highlight some investments most important to my constituents in minnesota. the $5.1 billion included in liheap ensure this is a seven million low-income households will have the money they need to keep warm this winter. the education increases in head start, idea, and pell grants will help give our children a quality education and the opportunity to attend and succeed in college. the $3.8 billion for work force

investment act that will help to retain our neighbors who have been hurt by these tough economic times. and lastly, the investments in the c.d.c., the n.i.h. will strengthen public health and health research which are critical to keeping america healthy. families in minnesota and across the united states need this bill and i strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well. again, i want to commend chairman obey and his staff for their extraordinary commitment to giving all of america's children and families the opportunity to be healthy, secure, and successful. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw who is also a member of the appropriations committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. crenshaw: as a member of this committee, i want to commend chairman obey and ranking member tiahrt for bringing this be bill to the floor today. -- bringing this bill to the floor today. there are some good things in this bill and some things that are not so good. one of the best things i believe is the money we're appropriating to the national institute of health, some $31 billion, which is about a 3% increase over last year. i think the research that they do is efficient, cost effective, they find cures for disease, they help prevent disease, and i think we'd all agree that the money we spend today can save us billions of dollars tomorrow. one of the areas this money is going for is in the area called irritable bowel disease. it's a terrible disease, affects about 1.5 million people, about 10% of them are young people. we don't know what causes it or

how to cure it. but the money that is part of the n.i.h. today is going to really make some major breakthroughs because so little is known. it's one of the most exciting areas in scientific research. so it's my hope that this money continues to go to this area that one day we will be able to find a cure and beat this terrible disease. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one 1/2 minutes. mr. ryan: people are saying, why are we rushing, why isn't there more debate? we have an obligation to the american people to get the job done, the fiscal year starts in october. i commend chairman obey for making sure we get the house bills done before we leave in

august. i think it's going to be quite an accomplishment. it's important for us to remember that our friends on the other side had control of the house, had control of the senate, had control of the white house, had control of the supreme court, had a chance to implement their health care policy, their energy policy, and their overall economic policy, and that's the world we're living in right now. they had control of everything. we're trying to fix it. $1,100 increase in gas prices per family over the course of the last 10 years, small business health care goes up 120% over the last decade. that's a tax, we're trying to fix it. if we do nothing, gas prices will continue to go up, energy costs will continue to go up, health care corses will continue to go up. we're trying to rein this in and fix it. i think this bill does a lot of what we need to do. this eliminates 28 programs, cuts $1.3 billion out of the bill, funds community health

clinics so that 17 million patients have some access to health care, an increase in pell grants since democrats have had an opportunity to move in, a $1,500 increase a 37% increase in charter schools, $256 million -- mr. obey: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: $250 million for helping start up charter schools. investments in n.i.h. for cancer research. these are the investments we need to make. this is the situation we've been given. these are the cards we've been dealt. i think this bill gos a long way in trying to clean up this mess. it's not going to happen overnight. it took 10 years of republican leader thip so get us in the worst economic situation we've been in since the great depression, it's going to take a few years to get out. the current system cannot continue. this bill, the energy bill, the

health care reform are all opportunities for us to change the direction in which we're going. be that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: thank you, mr. chairman. apparently the gentleman from ohio has overlooked a fact that every bill, spending bill that made it to the president's desk since 2007 was originated by the democrat-controlled house. so i would like to correct that. may i inquire how much time remains on this debate? the chair: the gentleman from kansas has 4 1/2 minutes remaining, the gentleman from waveg has 21 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. tiahrt: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiahrt: mr. chairman, sometimes there is convenient memory loss about what has happened in the economy recently. since 2007, the house

appropriations committee, as well as the full house, has been controlled by democrat leadership. the bills that were voted for in the bailout last year were voted for by the current president, then senator, obama. to think the economic woes of today were imposed upon the democrat-controlled house by republicans is a stretch of even the wildest imagination. to assume the republicans in the house control the supreme court at any time in the history of this country is a stretch of the imagination. the bill before us today, when added with the stimulus bill is a $9 -- is a 93% increase in spending. a tremendous amount of money. it's money that's not designed to bring jobs back to america, but merely continue existing programs and create new programs that have not gone through the hearing process. the process of developing and changing and molding these programs so that they have full productivity for the american

people whether it's in health care or education or in labor. so i think that it's important for us to realize that this bill has a lot of money that is money we don't have, excessive money, and it should have had the opportunity, through the amendment process to bring it back to levels that we can afford. level this is a would not have imposed an excessive amount of borrowing for the american people. that borrowing leads to requirements for not only ourselves, but future americans to work hard for their money and then pay off programs that have already been -- money that's already been spent on programs that existed in the past. so mr. chairman, i would say that this process has been, i think, restricted in an unnecessary fashion and because of that, there are many people who will not be able to support this legislation. i want to once again acknowledge that the chairman

of the appropriations committee has spent a lot of time a lot of effort, looked deeply into the details of this bill, and i think that this bill is an encompassment of his passion for serving and he's done a very good job in the details and the work he's put into this bill. i want to acknowledge that publicly and thank him for the effort. i wish the spending levels for less so i could join with him in supporting this measure, but i will not be able to do that. i think in the future as we move forward, i hope next weir, -- next year, we bring the spending levels into an area, much of this bill is work that needs to be done in this area, i'm looking forward to working with the chairman -- chairman on this bill next year and achieve those levels. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman 23r wisconsin. -- the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: did the gentleman

yield back? the chair: the gentleman from kansas yielded back. mr. obey: i recognize myself for the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: mr. chairman, before i get into the specifics of the bill, i would like to take a couple of minutes to respond to some of the criticisms that have been made about the process by which this bill has come to the floor. much has been made of the fact that this bill did not come to the floor under an open rule. there's nothing really new about that. at least 25 occasions during the republican control of this house appropriation bills came to the floor without being under an open rule. but i want to specifically address the so-called outrage that has occurred by our supposedly denying republican amendments the right to get a vote.

here are the facts. republican members of the house offered 14 amendments. they filed 14 amendments at the rules committee. four of those amendments were not in order under the rules. a point of order could have been lodged against all of them, so they were out. three more were on subjects that belong in the health care debate, the health care reform debate, which is now working its way through congress. i think that people on the other side of the aisle mistook me for henry waxman. i don't think henry would want to look like me. i don't think i look like him. somehow there's confusion, and so our republican friends have brought a number of amendments, three of them, to this bill on subjects such as forbidding us from having a public option in

the health care reform bill. that's not under the jurisdiction of this committee. all we would do was add to the confusion. so those amendments were rejected by the rules committee. then, our republican friends offered another amendment which dealt with the issue of indirect student loans, whether that program should expire or not. that is an issue which was decided by the education and labor committee earlier this week. it is an authorization issue, not an appropriation issue, so it's decided on that bill. so that takes us from the republicans' 14 initial amendments down to five amendments. we made in order four of those five amendments. the one amendment that we did not make in order that was

remaining was an amendment that would have added $1 billion to a program that we already added $12 billion to last year -- i mean, earlier this year in the recovery package. we put $12 billion in increases into special education. in the 12 years that the republicans controlled this bait in total they only added $8.5 billion to that program. so we point of order money into that program -- so we poured money into that program, and given competition on the part of all other programs for taxpayers' money, i think the rules committee jfblely felt that that -- justifiably felt that that amendment was a little outlandish so we didn't vote on it. now if people want to make a federal case out of that history, be my guest. the second thing we heard today was considerable bashing in addition to bashing of the

majority party in the house, we've heard considerable bashing of president obama. in terms of the bashing of the majority, we were told a bitterlyier by one of the speakers over there that we had been partisan in the full committee and had rejected every republican amendment. that's nonsense. we accepted 57 republican amendments on all of the appropriation bills that went through the committee this year. i hardly think that that is being partisan. i would also point out that the bailout, which has been so roundly denounced by several speakers today, that bailout was originally proposed and asked for by president bush. it was voted down the first time in this house. it was voted up the second time after credit markets further collapsed, and both mr. obama and mr. mccain in an act of patriotism rose above their

partisan or political or electoral interests and supported president bush on that issue, even though he was unpopular. enough said on that score. i would also say that for those who are screaming about the president's economic recovery efforts, the president has been in office a very few short months. the recovery act passed less than five months ago. it is designed to be a 30-month program to try to limit to some degree the job loss in this economy. we were losing 700,000 jobs a month in the last three months of the bush administration. we've now seen that -- that job loss decline to about 400,000 jobs a month. that's not good enough in

anybody's eyes, but it is a whole lot better than what was happening last year, and it's going to take frankly a long time to repair the damage done by eight years of previous government policy. so i would prefer to set those issues aside. i don't think it's particularly productive to engage in partisan bashing. i should -- i should correct one statement that i made. i said that we'd accept the 57 amendments in committee. we accepted 257 amendments in committee and on the floor -- 57 amendments in committee and on the floor, let me correct that statement. having gotten rid of that underbrush, i'd like to now turn to what is in this bill and why i believe the house ought to support it. as i said earlier, this government, both under president bush and under president obama, has pumped a lot of money into what i would call the elite sectors of the

committee, the financial sectors of the committee, the banking system,est and wall street -- etc., and wall street and now this bill is the main appropriation bill that deals with the economic problems and the health problems of every other american. and i want to walk you through just a bit what this bill does. first of all, i think we need to understand this bill is fiscally responsible. the committee's allocation cut a total of $10 billion from the president's discretionary spending request. and in this bill we have a $52 million reduction from president obama's request. we have eliminated or cut some 44 programs saving $1.3 billion. and i would point out that the

largest single program -- problematic increase in the bill is $193 million increase for the social security administration to dramatically cut back the backlog on disability claims facing that agency. and i think no one would argue those funds are wasteful. after we account for that increase for social security, that leaves us with a 1.7% increase for the rest of the bill. after you deduct for inflation, it means this bill in real terms is .3% above last year. that is hardly prove la gait. in a-- prove la gat. in addition, a priority for this bill is $1.4 billion, which we include for activities to reduce improper payments, fraud and abuse in the department of labor and health and human services and in the social security administration. that is a 50% increase in

enforcement money to go after fraud and waste and abuse over the previous year. it's been estimated by the budget office that that action could result in over $48 billion in savings and in increase revenue from picking up legitimate revenues that would otherwise be lost. with respect to the department of health and social services, this bill increases that agency by about $-- 3.3%. again, hardly a profligate increase. now we are talking about our desire to pass health care reform. we recognize in the committee that if we're going to do that we have to increase the capacity of the health care system, and so we are appropriating nearly $3 billion to do just that. we're providing $2.2 billion

for community health centers, $530 million to expand training programs in the nursing field, $135 million for career pathway innovation fund to again train nurses, medical technicians and others in the health care industry, $75 million additional funding for state health access grants to help states transition so a health reform program, and $65 million for state high-risk insurance pools. we've also increased the national institutes of health funding over by $500 million. i've said many times on this house floor that when i go home i've never had anybody in my life saying, hey, obey, why don't you guys in washington get your act together in washington and cut cancer research? and yet, that's what the previous president and the previous congress did. they eliminated over 900 medical research grants at the

national institute of health. we don't do that. we had a significant amount of money to try to beef up our medical research across the board. we also add some $200 million for an initiative begun by former treasury secretary o'neill in pennsylvania to try to get hospitals to bring under control the life-threatening hospital infection problem which is plaguing our country. with respect to senior nutrition and other services, we provided $1.5 billion. we have provided -- we have rejected the administration's efforts to cut $1.5 billion out of basic grants for title 1. we've restored that funding. we have provided a large increase, $464 million for the administration's top priority,

which is the teacher incentive fund, and $500 million increase for pell grants. the department of labor, more than half the increase in that department is simply to help states to process unemployment compensation claims. we also have a $271 million program in this bill to strengthen our ability to help veterans transition to civilian work force employment. and i think, mr. chairman, that's about all i want to say about the numbers in the bill. i just want to add one thing. with respect to the policy provisions in this bill, we have retained every single limitation that was contained in previous appropriation bills when our republican friends were in the majority. we have retained every single restriction on abortion that

was in bills when they controlled the house. and so i think we have leaned over backwards to try to work with our friends in the minority, and as i say, i appreciate the relationship that i have with the gentleman from kansas. he's a fine and good man. we don't agree on everything, but as will rogers said once, when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. and so we do the best we can to reconcile our differences. we all have deeply held beliefs, but i think this bill represents the values of the country, and i hope the values of this congress, and i would urge support. and if the gentleman has yielded back his time, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment under the five-minute rule and the bill shall be considered as read through page 134, line 12.

no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 111-222, each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for division on the question. after disposition of the amendments specified in the first section of house resolution 673 the chair and ranking minority member on the committee on appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for purpose of debate which shall be controlled by the proponent. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-222. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: mr. chairman, i have a manager's amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-222 offered by mr. obey of wisconsin.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 673, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. obey, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. chairman, this amendment, i believe, is not controversial. it incorporates several amendments requested by members, and makes technical corrections to the underlying bill. these are fully offset and does not change the underlying funding for the bill. it provides an additional $500 million for the career pathways innovation fund within the department of labor requested by mr. teague, offset by reduction in the green jobs fund. it contains an additional $1 million for the emergency medical services for children's program. as a result, the total of $21 million is included in the bill to bring improved medical care to children for mr. matheson's work on this issue. it contains an additional $1 million for the national center of health statistics. fully offset.

as a result, the bill includes $140 for the collection and -- of health statistics. mathematics and science partnership program is increased by $5 million to $184 million to expand professional development for math and science teachers. again, it is fully offset. it was urged by mr. holt and mr. ehlers and others. the amendment provides nearly $7 million for the reach out and read program within the fund for improving education, the department of education. it will result in an additional $2 million for books to help children learn to read due to the efforts of mr. mcgovern. the amendment increases the amount from $20 million to $30 million within the charter schools program in the department of education that may be used for grants to charter organizations to replicate successful charter models at the request of mr. polis.

the amendment provides $1 million for university model and simulation programs newly authorized by the higher education act proposed by mr. scott. the amendment includes two funding limitation amendments sponsored by mr. cuellar with respect to the federal management program designation and a prohibition on the use of funds in the bill for any first-class travel. the amendment also makes technical corrections. i'd be happy to yield briefly to mr. cohen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: i rise to thank chairman obey for his inclusion of $1 million to be directed to the nabble center for health statistics. this was done to hope funds would be used to study enhanced birth certificates across the nation. they face a funding shortage and need to study birth

certificates to learn more about the infant mortality problem we have in this country, it rival this is a in third world countries. lowering our infant mortality rate starts with understanding why it is so high. i thank you for the time. mr. obey: i'd be happy to yield to mr. teague. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. teague: i thank chairman obey and mr. chairman, i rise today in support of my all energy jobs amendment to the labor appropriations act, it takes $5 million from the green jobs fund and puts it into the career pathway funds for the purpose of job training in all energy fields. let me be clear, i do not oppose green jobs and i don't oppose green energy, quite the opposite. we need always jobs we can get

and all the energy we can produce. but as we work in congress to make up for inaction on energy issues of the decade, the inaction that led to dependence on foreign oil and high energy costs, we cannot pretend that green energy will solve all our problems. we cannot pretend the american economy does not depend on oil and gas. we cannot forget that nuclear energy is a safe, dependable, carbon neutral source of power. mr. chairman, i am an oil man, always have been, always will be. when i arrived in congress, the oil and gas industry was in the trough, it still is. around my hometown of hobbs if you're not looking for a job, you know a handful of folks who are. times are tough and work is scarce. we're hoping that will change soon. when the oil and gas industry comes out of the truff, we'll need to find trained and skilled oil field workers in a hurry. i want to make new mexico the all-energy capital of the

world, we want to add new energy jobs. in order to cubble up on energy job we must increase the oil and gas jobs we have and can't do that if job training programs ignore the needs of the oil and gas industry. thank you. mr. obey: i thank the gentleman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? me pl tiahrt: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. tiahrt: i'm not opposed to the chairman's amendment in substance, but i am opposed to the amendment in process. it incorporates nine separate standalone amendments, ensuring those members would not have to go to the ewells committee and plead to have a perfectly legitimate amendment on the floor. it incorporates no republican amendments. if i heard the chairman correctly, there were 10 that could have been included but were not. looking through the list of what's in the amendment, career

pathways innovation fund for $5 million with an offset, health resources and service administration, $1 million with a $1 million offset. going through the list, there's not much that brings out any controversy. they could have stood alone. there perhaps is one that would not have been legitimate standing alone, which would include a prohibition to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulls are energy star qualified or have a federal energy management program designation, i think that one is probably protected under the rule. let me tell you what was not included. because these amendments were not made in order. a common sense amendment to use technology to reduce unemployment insurance improper and fraudulent payments or an amendment to prevent the federal government from shutting down the largest student len system today. what was not included was an amendment to prevent the

secretary of health and human services from setting up a rationed health care system. what was not included was an amendment to prevent the government from nationalizing our health care system. what was not included was an amendment to prevent the government from imposing a mandate on small businesses, which if it had passed, would have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs. what was not included was an amendment to ensure that the only entities setting up medicare reimbursement rates is the center for medicare and medicaid service, not any other government agency or bureaucracy. what is not included is a shift to add $1 billion to special education from new, never before tried programs. what was not included was an amendment before us that would have addressed other issues that are important. what is in the amendment before us is systematically what's wrong with the process.

it disenfranchises the american people system of therefore i would urge a no vote and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: could i ask how much time i have remaining. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin has five minutes remaining. mr. obey: did the gentleman yield ba? -- yield back? you have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from kansas yielded back. mr. obey: how much time? the chair: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. obey: let me consume a minute of that time myself. mr. chairman, all i would say is that i had at least two members of the republican side of the aisle come up and thank me for accepting various amendments. so while they may not have been the lead sponsors on amendments, they were certainly involved on the republican side of the aisle in supporting some of the amendment this is a we have accepted and incorp. -- amendments that we have

accepted and incorporated. secondly, i think the gentleman's recitation of some amendments not considered illustrates my point earlier. the first amendment was one that was clearly not in order under the budget act. it would have put this entire bill under a violation of the budget act for being over our allowable funding. i didn't think good conservatives would want us to do that. secondly, i would point out the second, third, and fourth options you were talking about all speak to what kind of health care reform we should have and that is not the jurisdiction of this committee. those issues right now are being worked on in the energy and commerce committee, the education and labor committee and they're being worked on in the ways and means committee. that's where they should remain. having said that, i would like to yield briefly to the gentlewoman from california. the chair: how much time? mr. obey: wo minutes.

the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: i rise in strong support of this for this bill. i want to thank our staffs for producing this excellent bill. our nation is in the midst, as we all know thombing worst economic crisis since the great depression. families are losing their jobs. losing their homes. losing their access to health care. people are hurting and they really do need our help. that'shy this bill is so important. from expanding support for education initiatives like early childhood education to job training and employment services, to expanding access to health care and improving public health, this bill will provide a critical range of services and support for our constituents, especially during these very devastating times. i want to thank the chairman

for including a number of important priority this is a many of my colleagues requested, in particular, $653 million to strengthen historical black colleges and university, predominantly black institutions, hispanic-serving institutions and other institutions. this is a $110 million increase over the president's request for hbc use. also an increase for h.i.v. aids funding through the ryan white care act and a $56 million increase for the hiv-aids bureau. we also included $250 nrl the green jobs training, building on what we provided for the recovery act. there are those individuals who need to be trained and need the skills for this great trillion-dollar industry that is emerging in our country. also, i want to thank the chairman for replacing the discredited and ineffective

abstinence only program with the president's evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention initiative to fund proven approaches to reduce unintended pregnancies and sexually transmated infections. this is a huge, huge step in the right direction to ensure the health of our young teenage girls and boys. these critical investments will help put our nation back on the right track. i urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment in the bill. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. obey: i yield one minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 45 second. >> i thank the chairman and the chairman of the committee. this is a good bill. the other side wants to change it by restricting access to reproductive services, by limiting research in aids, and particularly, and this is the issue i want to speak to right

now, by preventing the exchange of clean needles. well, i think people need to know that we have had experimentation with this kind of punitive action because over the last several year the same people have been successful in imposing this restriction on the district of columbia. we know what the results are. for the last six years, we have seen an increase in aids among female residents of the district of columbia of 76%. we now have the largest number of women with aids in d.c. why? well it hasn't happened in other cities. in fact in new york city they saw a reduction of 75% since they were able to make clean needles available. but 61% of women who have aids get it through the injection of dirty needles. of course it's women also who have babies and what could be

worse than a child born to a life of suffering deprivation and early death? but in fact, largely as a result of what was the tiahrt amendment, imposed on d.c. for the last six years, there is now a rate that is 54 times the rest of the country in terms of incidence of children born with aids, with h.i.v. infection. 54 times. now this is the result of the kind of punitive legislation that the other side would like to impose on this bill. let's keep this bill intact. it's a good bill. it deserves to pass. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i urge adoption of the manager's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentleman from kansas.

mr. tiahrt: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-222. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will reasmed the clerk: amendment number two offered by mr. souder of indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana, mr. souder, and a member opposed each will control 150 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. souder: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. souder: contrary to what was said on the house floor, dr. david murray reported it's mixed and in most case, hiver virus does not come through needles, the overwhelming majority comes through sexual activity.

the district of columbia which seeks money from the federal government unlike any other city is then subject to restrictions. the -- the district of columbia had the strictest gun laws in the united states yet led the country in the murder rate that the rest of the country can't be blamed for whatever problems they may have that are behavioral related in the district of columbia, that the fundamental questions in why congress has repeatedly, over and over, banned needle exchange programs when given the opportunity is, one they may undermine community drug prevention messages and programs, two, providing needles acts as a way for drug users to sustain and support their intra-venus drug use and does not address the primary illness of the drug addiction, and three, the programs deflect resources away from drug prevention programs which have not been seen to affect h.i.v. infection rates and drug use. there is some, but not substantial. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. anyone seek time? mr. obey: mr. chairman, my two speakers have not yet arrive. so i'd ask -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: first, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. obey: and then i would ask if the gentleman could proceed with another speaker. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. souder: i recognize myself for three additional minutes. i want to talk about the needle exchange programs. this is a series of questions with dr. david murry who was the analyst and expert in needle exchange. in a nutshell, why doesn't the federal government fund needle exchange program? the existing evidence cannot support the claim that distribution of needles to enable drug addiction behavior can meet these criteria. what's the current state of

research regarding needle exchange programs? the most recent comprehensive analysis of the evidence by the u.s. institute of medicine is much retrenched from earlier claims that there were these overwhelming results. for example, the report notes that the evidence that needle exchanges reduces h.i.v. incidents is inconclusive. that it's worse for hepatitis c transition. and high-risk behaviors like sex-related risk is conclusive. are there potential unintended consequences? indeed. the healers model -- motto first is, do no harm. the impact of needle exchange programs on drug use and reduction and disease reduction is not comforting. while it's not convincing that needle exchanges is actively worse, there are concerns. there is disease increased, --

there is disease increased incidented. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the baffle his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i'd like to thank the gentleman for his courtesy. i'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from california two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. prior to elected office i worked in alcohol and drug prevention programs and saw firsthand the power and the destructive nature of drug addiction. i saw it destroy the life of the user and i saw the agony it caused families. i would never support a measure that encourages or contributes to the use of illegal drugs. chairman obey's leadership in eliminating the ban on federal dollars for needle exchange programs is based on sound

scientific research that tells us these programs are a valuable h.i.v. prevention tool that does not increase drug use. mr. souder's amendment reinstates this ill-advised ban and returns us to a practice of allowing personal belief rather than science to direct our federal funding decisions. the science is clear. whened aics have clean needles -- when addicts have clean needles available, h.i.v. infection declines among users. furthermore, needle exchange programs provide a critical port hole to treatment and are an important part of our efforts to reduce the h.i.v. epidemic. i urge my colleagues to follow the science and to join me in voting no on this amendment.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. souder: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from west virginia, mr. mollohan. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. mollohan: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. for those of you, my colleagues, who might support this amendment because you believe that withholding clean needles from addicted drug users is somehow helping in the fight against ill legal drug use, -- illegal drug use, please allow me to suggest that that is a mistaken view and that you are really promoting the addiction among active addicts and those with whom

they socialize. indeed that's the point. needle exchange is not about promoting drug use. it is in fact about preventing disease. now, to understand why this is true, you really must understand that at the heart of addiction is craving. an addict, a person who is addicted, they are addicted because they crave. they have to have the drug that artificially gives them the feeling of well-being, that instantaneous euphoria. there is instant craving. and there are lots of ways to enable drug use. there are lots of ways to help promote drug use in the country, to enable families allowing drug users to have access to resources is the most prominent one. but the needle exchange program advocated for and carried out by health professionals is not

one of those enablers. because, again, why? at the moment that an addicted person has to have the drug, he or she is driven by this craving, and the condition of the needle is not going to deter its use. now, while that may not be rational, while people who are standing around thinking rationally, gee, you wouldn't use a bad needle, they are not acting in a rational way. and that's the point. the condition of the needle is not the deterrence, and, therefore, withholding clean needles simply -- they would likely use and share dirty needles and that spreads disease. oppose this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. souder: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. tiahrt: i thank the

chairman. mr. chairman, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, felt it necessary to mention me as responsible for the increased in aids in the district of columbia. thiss a personal attack. rarely do we see such a personal attack on the floor of the house. he did it because he believes i'm responsible since i had the amendment that did restrict needles in the district of columbia. apparently he felt like i was down there forcing people with aids to have relations, forcing drug abusers to take drugs, and i just think it's very much a problem when we start being so personal in this attack. i mean, he overlooks the fact that these people really need help overcoming the use of illegal drugs, that they're dependent on a lifestyle that is only leaves to destruction -- leads to destruction and i personally don't want to be part of that destruction and people feel like it's unnecessary. he looks over the fact that many people who have studied long term the effect of a needles program believe it doesn't work. in baltimore, where they followed the same drug abusers

through the process, when they had access to the needles program, 90% of the people had a blood-born illness. i would consider 90% negative a failure. now, other people may think that when 90% attract a blood-borne illness like hepatitis or aids that that would be a success. but to me personally it's not. i regret that i was brought into this personally and i was personally attacked by this because i didn't force people to use illegal drugs, i didn't force to have personal relations to those who have aids. when we found needles on school property in the area where needles were distributed before the restriction, it's sad we can't even protect the children of d.c. from being exposed to this type of activity. i'm very pleased -- i won't yield. i'm very pleased that the chairman of this committee has tried to allow areas of this country around schools, around places to be vacant of these systems.

i think there's some good things in this bill about it, but i don't think the overall program has been successful. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from california the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 45 seconds. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the simple fact of the matter is the needle exchange programs do work. since 1999 there have been at least 18 major reviews of needle exchange programs under the republican and democratic administrations which concluded that needle exchange programs help reduce the spread of aids and other infection diseases without en-- other infectious diseases without encouraging drug use. it serves an effective entry -- to access the public health system and receive substance abuse treatment to help them overcome their addiction. and that is what it is about. we all want to make sure that those who are using drugs overcome their addiction. this is a proven strategy, and so i ask for a no vote on this

amendment. we have to: funding hiv-aids strategies -- we have to understand funding hiv-aids strategies is a prevention. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. souder: do you have any other speakers? you have the right to close. how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from indiana has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 5 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. souder: i'll do my closing now and then the gentleman can close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. souder: i tracked this issue are for a long time. you can make allegations of studies but studies are in fact very mixed on both sides, as i aid read of the national office drug control person who studied all the studies, worked with the people at night in the studies. and quite frankly and honestly there is -- it is mixed. there is one down in vancouver who advocates legalization of marijuana and he said that in

the downtown area of vancouver it showed no progress on aids but no progress on heroin. now, i mentioned vancouver. vancouver and switzerland have been addressing this question long before the united states got into this. when you go over to switzerland and study their program, they evolved first from a needle exchange, for then having a place where they can inject separate, then to these government of switzerland providing the heroin and managing to some degree they have reduced certain elements of problems. they did not reduce heroin abuse. in fact, you can argue they increased heroin abuse and they turned a bunch of people into zombies instead of addressing the social problem of heroin addiction. now, in vancouver, where i've been three times, and i encourage people to go to the cops squad site of policemen who have been dedicating trying to counter what some of the government has been spreading about the drug problem in vancouver. vancouver is a very interesting case because they were first. they were the first city in

north america that in effect had a drug-free zone and dealt with the needles question. and it has been debated, there are certain studies now that claim this is a brand new experiment. it's been going going on for at least 10 years. they had people in the street with a stand trying to do needles. but the next time i went up there they had an injection site and they were out trying to reach and they had spread into the suburbs because they didn't want people to have to go just to downtown. they went to the suburbs. most of the studies were studying the downtown area. you have people peddling trying to keep the police away. let me tell you about vancouver where the winter olympics are going to be held. the junkies come to the street. some gets a handful of syringes. they pocket heroin, cocaine and speed, which they've included