we are a nation of laws. that we don't seek to take short cuts. that we don't think it's a good idea to water board and torture and those kinds of things. that's a basic and fundamental difference in political philosophy, i think, here today. and you know what? as i go around the world and talk to members of the intelligence community in the c.i.a., n.s.a., d.i.a., f.b.i. -- d.n.a., f.b.i. and others that's what they want to do. they want to be given the tools to carry out their job and do it within the framework that we are so proud of as americans. that's what we should be doing. that's more than anything what this debate is about. are we going to honor the traditions that our country stands for, the reasons that we are held up as a model around

the world? or are we going to subscribe to the policies of previous administration that says because people are intent on attacking us, that anything goes. that we throw the rule book out the window. that we throw the constitution out the door. and let people do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. that's not who we are. that's not what we should be about, and believe me, the men and women that are charged with keeping us safe want those issues to be as clear-cut and understood. . i'll close by saying, it's very telling that when the last administration made a decision under the enhance interrogation to waterboard the two things happened. first of all, the c.i.a. did

not have that expertise in-house. they have to go to the d.o.d. to get it. and secondly, when the f.b.i. realized that was part of the interrogation process, they said, you know, that's not what we're about, we can get the job done the right way without resorting to those kinds of techniques. and they returned back to headquarters. so with that, i hope we can have substantive debate on issues that are important to our country, issues that are relevant, and most importantly, issues that provide the men and women, the professionals in whatever agency you're talking about, the tools and the direction that we are a nation of laws. we have -- we have to respect our constitution. with that, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the gentleman from atwater how many speakers he has on his side? mr. cardoza: mr. speaker, i'm the last speaker on our side but the chairman may reserve the right to respond in the event he wants to answer the other side. mr. dreier: well, under floor management, i mean, there's only allowed -- i mean -- mr. cardoza: i can yield him my time. mr. dreier: so he'd be the closing speaker then? mr. cardoza: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm glad to yield to a member from the committee on select intelligence, the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the ranking member for yielding. and i'd like to use my two minutes if the chairman of the

full committee would respond to a question. would you respond? if i may enter into a colloquy with the chairman. if you believe what you just said, why are we striking section 506 from your manager's amendment? please. mr. reyes: last night we offered under unanimous consent to withdraw it which -- mr. miller: reclaiming my time. why did you do that? mr. reyes: can i -- mr. miller: yes. mr. reyes: the issue after reflecting on it was at least i understood from the comments that were being made by your side that there were some misimpressions of what actually the amendment was intending on doing. and so i offered to withdraw

that under unanimous consent, and your side decided not to. mr. miller: reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. please, i'm going to continue the colloquy. you, though, you're saying that it's misimpressions on our side. it was your side last night that blew up when this issue was brought forward. and you didn't have the votes to do it. and so my next question is, if you had defended it all day long, why did you allow it to be put in the bill the first place? mr. reyes: well, we can -- we can only do so much with -- to make sure that your side understands that the concerns that you were raising were not in fact what was meant by the amendment. that's the -- mr. miller: thank you, sir. reclaiming my time. exactly what i'm trying to put forth to the public today. you talk about we're entitled to our own opinion but not our

own facts. facts are facts. facts are that the chairman of the committee had this put into the bill. the chairman of the committee now is having it pulled out of the bill. which is the way they want to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield 30 seconds to my friend from gold river, california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: i come over and respond to what was just said, when he said the previously administration, everything goes. read the memo that came out of the justice department, looking at the actions of the justice department, it suggests that anything did not go. to say that now is to besmerch the reputation of good men and women who were both career and political to save us from the threat of terrorists since 9/11. and to come here and say anything goes is a continuation

of besmerching the reputation of good men and women and it ought not to stand. look at the facts, look at those that reviewed the analysis. you'll see that's not the case. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. the gentleman from, mr. cardoza. mr. cardoza: i yield to the chairman such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reyes: to respond to my friend from california's comment. i'll give you just one example. the issue of waterboarding has been characterized asted equivalent of a training -- as the equivalent of a training exercise. we use that to train our pilots. don't you think there's a big difference between categorizing it that way and waterboarding an individual 180 -- 183 times?

mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield so i might be able to respond? if the gentleman would look at the memo that just came out, reviewing the legal analysis provided by the justice department in terms of waterboarding, you would see that there is not only an historic but a legal and substantial difference between the waterboarding referenced in the complaints versus that which we did. mr. reyes: answer the question, do you think there's a difference between a training exercise that simulate waterboarding for -- mr. lungren: i'd be happy to respond if the gentleman would allow me to. mr. reyes: yes. mr. lungren: the fact of the matter is after that individual was waterboarded multiple times, we received actionable information from the intelligence community which allowed us to stop plots that were aimed at killing americans. that has been said under oath by the highest levels of the

intelligence community in the united states. mr. reyes: reclaiming my time. that doesn't deserve a response, but what i will say is that the f.b.i. and our interrogators, professionals that they are, have proven that you can get better information by following the traditional interrogation procedures. you don't have to resort to quote-unquote enhanced interrogations. mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. reyes: with that i'll reserve. mr. lungren: facts are difficult. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: i presume my friend is the last speaker on his side. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. yesterday at the white house, speaker pelosi said that people sitting around the kitchen table don't care about process, they care about results. well, the fact of the matter is this has been an extraordinary

sloppy process, and as we've just seen from the exchange that has taken place, it looks like we have the potential for very, very serious far-reaching results which could have been devastating had we included the mcdermott language in this measure. now, mr. speaker, as we look at this pattern, it's unfortunate. i think we made history here today by having the third rule considered for the first step of legislation. it's taken eight months for us to get here when we should have been dealing with it -- we should have dealt with it last summer when we had it as a priority for us. and i got to say, mr. speaker, when you have bad process you end up with bad results. and that's exactly what has happened here. and so i'm very, very troubled that we're at this point, but we're going to try to do what we can to move forward. so with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. cardoza. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, i want to say that i think -- i'm pleased we're removing the language today. i want to remind my colleagues that in this bill we are helping to prevent the disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and misinformed congresses can have on national security. i urge a vote on the rule, a yes vote on the rule and on the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to house resolution 1105 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2701. will the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2701 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the united states government, the community management account, and the central intelligence agency retirement and disability system, and for other purposes.

the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on february 25, 2010, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-419 offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. schauer, had been postponed. amendment number 1 shall be considered as modified by striking the matter proposed to be inserted as section 506. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-419 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 1, as modified by mr. reyes of texas, amendment number 3 by mr. hastings of florida, amendment number 12 by schauer of michigan. the the unfinished business is

the -- the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1, as modified, by mr. reyes of texas on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. reyes of texas, as modified. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239. and the nays are 16 --

.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 246. the nays are 166. the amendment as modified is adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report number 111-4119 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the yeas and nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report number 111-419, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is 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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 401. the nays are 11. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-419 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. schauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, printed in house report number 111-419, offered by mr. schauer of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request

for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is 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 410, and the nays are one. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the

committee amendment on the -- in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2701 and pursuant to house resolution 1105 i report the bill back to the house with the amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2701, and pursuant to house resolution 1105 reports the

bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the united states government, the community management account, and the central intelligence agency retirement and disability system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. hoekstra: yes, in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. hoekstra of michigan moves to recommit the bill -- mr. hoekstra: i is that the motion be considered as read -- i ask that the motion be considered as read. the clerk: mr. hoekstra of michigan moves to recommit the bill back to the select committee of intelligence to bring the bill back to the house forth with at the end of subtitle a add the following new section, section 407. coordination of high value of detainee interrogation. section 102-a of the national

security act of 1947, 50 u.s.c. 403-1 is amended by adding at the end of the following -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. break up the conversations in the middle aisle and in the back of the chambers. break up the conversations in the back of the chambers and the middle and the side aisles. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: s, continuation of high value of detainee. one, the director of national intelligence shall containing intelligence community, the director of the central intelligence agency and the director of the federal bureau

of investigation. a, coordinate the interrogation of high-valued detainees associated with international terrorism, captured, held or questioned by a department or agency that is or contains an element of the intelligence community. b, be responsible for any interagency group conducting an interrogation of a high-valued detainee associated with international association. and, c, before an officer or employee of the federal government provides the warnings of constitutional rights described in the miranda vs. arizona, to a high-value detainee who is suspected of terrorism associate, associated with terrorists or believes to have knowledge of terrorists and who is captured, held or questioned by a department or agency that is or contains an element of the intelligence community approve of providing

such high-valued detainee. two, paragraph 1 shall not apply with respect to a detainee who is captured on the battlefield by the armed forces of the united states unless a director of national intelligence determines that such detainee is a high-valued detainee. three, the director of national intelligence may not delegate the authority to approve the providing of warnings under paragraph 1-c. at the end of subtitle b of title 4, add the following new section. section 417. review of briefings on covert action by the c.i.a., public availability of unclassified versions of documents relating to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. a, review of briefings. not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act, the inspector general of the central intelligence agency shall, one, compile any objections raised by a member of congress to a covert action

as defined in section 503-e of the national security act of 1947, 50 u.s.c. 1413-b-e under such member of congress was briefed by personnel of the central intelligence agency after september 11, 2001. and, two, access -- assess whether the central intelligence agency addressed such objections. b, public availability of unclassified versions of developments related to use of enhanced interrogation techniques. the director of the central intelligence agency shall make publicly available. one, classified version of all records memorializing briefings made to members of congress on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. and two, an unclassified version of funished intelligence products produced after september 11, 2001,

assessing the information gained from detainee reporting including documents dated july 15, 2004, or june 1, 2005. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoekstra: thank you, mr. speaker. our country and our intelligence community are at a crossroads. over the last 15 -- 18 -- 14 months we were struggling if we were going to focus on defeating terrorists or whether we were going to focus on a law enforcement approach. this couldn't have been defined more clearly than what it was yesterday when the manager of this bill brought forward an amendment that would have put our intelligence community professionals at risk, putting them under criminal statute that you wouldn't even apply to your local sheriff or your local state trooper. thankfully, many of our colleagues on the other side of

the aisle joined with us and forced the majority to go back and rewrite the rule and come back and strip that provision from the bill. but that move yesterday should not have been a surprise. it was only last year that the attorney general appointed a special prosecutor to investigate c.i.a. personnel even though career justice department officials had already decided that there was no basis for prosecution. it appears that the majority wants to investigate and prosecute everyone who has been involved in our critical interrogation programs except themselves. the records of briefings have shown clearly and repeatedly that democratic and republican leadership of the house talked about the same techniques that they wanted to criminalize yesterday and they never objected. although there was a release of

briefings over the last few days, the record is far from complete, because the administration and the majority have repeatedly blocked request in amendments to publicly release a full unclassified version of the briefing records. who knew what and when? the motion to recommit would stop the criminalization of our national security policy and ensure that members of congress would be as accountable for their conduct as the majority wants to hold the men and women of the c.i.a. the motion would ask the c.i.a. inspector general to conduct an independent review of whether any member of congress objected to the use of the techniques to review what steps were taken and to require the release of all the briefing memos. if the majority was not briefed or raised concerns, it should have nothing to fear from an independent and objective review of the facts by the inspector general. and secondly, the motion would also clarify once and for all that the director of national

intelligence should be in charge of coordinating interrogation of terrorists and make sure we have collected all actionable intelligence before reading terrorists the miranda rights. this is a proposition that should not be controversial. why is this in here? it was only on christmas day that the d.n.i., the director -- it was only on christmas day that the d.n.i., the director of the national counterterrorism center, the secretary of homeland security all said that they were not consulted before the christmas day bomber was read his miranda rights. these provisions are fully consistent with all of the other authorities that have been given to the d.n.i. to coordinate the activities of the intelligence community. it makes no sense for the d.n.i. to be in charge of coordinating all other intelligence activities, but then that the attorney general is in charge of interrogation of foreign terrorists.

this motion would place the emphasis back where it belongs. it would align accountability and authority for those who make the decisions with the d.n.i. the d.n.i. is responsible for collecting intelligence to prevent attacks. this is where we need to go. we can answer two fundamental questions with this motion to recommit. who knew what, when, on enhanced interrogation techniques before we go and prosecute people in the intelligence community, let's have a clear record of what members of this body knew and approved because basically the administration and this congress asked the intelligence personnel to do what they did. they were following our orders and instructions to keep america safe. and the second thing is, let's make sure that the d.n.i., the person with the responsibility

to keep us safe, has the final decision on when and how we will interrogate foreign terrorists to keep america safe. it's his job, it's his responsibility. let's get rid of the confusion, let's get the alignment, let's do what's necessary to keep america safe and to protect and recognize the service of our men and women in the intelligence community. with that i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. reyes: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. reyes: thank you, mr. speaker. to me it seems that the minority would have us fight terrorism with one hand tied behind our back. this motion to recommit would require that before a miranda

warning can be issued, an investigator or beat cop would have to get permission from a gaggle of cabinet-level officials in washington. this is simply absurd. the minority would put anybody f.b.i. agents who arrest potential terrorists in a bitter catch-22, the courts require that miranda warnings be given in certain circumstances. the minority would have an f.b.i. agent ignore those rules and shut down the possibility of ever building a criminal case. while the agent can stop an interrogation or someone tries to get signatures from half of washington. the provision doesn't even include authority for these officials to delegate the required certification. this means that if one official happens to be traveling, it's just going to take that much longer for that beat cop or that f.b.i. agent to start gathering evidence. let's get the facts straight about miranda. federal agents are not required to myrrh ran dies terrorism --

myrrh randize terrorism sussdects when there is a risk to public safety. they are free to interrogate suspects on concerns about any immediate or ongoing threat to our country. federal agents question the christmas day bomber without the miranda warnings under this very public safety exemption. federal agents also don't need to give miranda warnings when an interview is voluntary. the f.b.i. routinely secures intelligence from suspected terrorists wouts the miranda in this -- without the miranda in this manner. even when they are give, the record is crystal clear, suspected terrorists do not stop talking. just this week in the case of zazi who pled guilty to charges of attempting to kill innocent civilians on the new york subway, was aprehanded by law enforcement, given miranda

warnings, and interrogated thoroughly. in that questioning he provided valuable information about the plot and now he will be convicted without any fanfare. that is just one example among many. the christmas day bomber, the shoe bomber, richard reed, and scores of other suspected terrorists provided valuable intelligence after receiving miranda warnings. but this really today isn't about miranda at all. what the minority really wants to take away is our ability to use the criminal justice system to go after suspected terrorists. i urge my colleagues not to make such an irresponsible and reckless decision. don't support this motion to recommit. the federal criminal justice system has proven to be the most reliable and effective means we have for putting terrorists behind bars. federal prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and judges know better than anybody else how to interrogate, how to

try, how to convict, and how to hold terrorists. in the 10 years since 9/11, the justice department has successfully convicted more than 300 terrorists in federal criminal courts. these include hardened members of al qaeda, such as the so-called 20th hijacker, moussaoui. one case in particular on this point, richard reed was arrested for attempting to ignite a bomb in his shoe while on a flight to miami in december of 2001. reed was advised of his miranda rights within five minutes of being removed from the aircraft and was reminded of these rights four times within 48 hours. and now is serving a life sentence in federal prison. to my knowledge my republican friends did not criticize the bush administration for handling that case or any of the other cases that we have on file. this applies -- this motion to

recommit applies to the high value detainees so that in the toughest cases they want us to play by a completely unreasonable set of rules that will slow us down and make us weaker. that is why the department of defense opposes this. the director of national intelligence opposes this. the department of justice opposes this. i think this morning it's time to say, enough with the games. it's time for us to stop playing politics with our nurelt -- national security. it's time for us to create a system that makes those responsible for our safety play with one hand tied behind their back. let's let our law enforcement professionals do their jobs. above all, let's stop attacking the f.b.i. agents that know what they are doing.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. reyes: and let's vote down this motion to recommit. vote no on the motion to recommifment -- recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is -- mr. hoekstra: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is 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 recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 2701, if ordered, and the motion to

suspend the rules on h.con.res. 238. this will be 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 186. the nays are 217. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. chair. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 168. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. filner, to suspend the rules and agree to h.con.res. 238 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 238, concurrent resolution recognizing the difficult challenges black veterans faced when returning home after serving in the armed forces. their heroic military sacrifice, and their patriotism and fighting for equal rights and the dignity of a people and a nation. the chair: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution.

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 383, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to, and without objection motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. reyes: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of h.r. 2701 to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and

cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3961, an act to extend expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriot improvement and re-authorization act of 2005 and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 until february 28, 2011. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cantor: i thank you and i yield to the gentleman from maryland for purposes of the schedule. mr. hoyer: on monday the house is not in session, on tuesday the house is in session at -- will immediate at 12:00 p.m., on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10k a.m. for legislative business, on friday the house is not in session.

we will consider several suspension bills, they will be announced by close of business today. we will discuss the keeping all students safe act and further action on the jobs ageneral da. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, we have four weeks before our next district work period and i'd like to inquire from the gentleman about the upcoming legislative schedule during the next four weeks and what bills does he expect the house to consider prior to the easter recess? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would expect a number of items, certainly the jobs agenda, which will be fulsome and we will be pursuing over the next months, small business growth, tax cuts to spur growth and jobs will certainly be on the agenda in the coming weeks. in addition to addressing health care and the 2011 budget.

mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that. so from my understanding, we can expect to have a vote on health care bill between now and the easter recess. if that is the case, i'd ask the gentleman, mr. speaker, what is the thought about what that bill would look like. i would ask the gentleman, does he expect this bill to be the president's bill or will there be actually a chance for the minority to participate in crafting a health care bill? i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. well, the gentleman and i had the opportunity, a historic opportunity, i might say to participate in an extraordinary event in the history, perhaps, of our country. i'm not sure i can cite another instance, certainly in my career, when a president has

spent a whole day sitting with the legislative branch, the leadership of the republican and democratic party and the senate -- in the senate and the house and also of the committee chairs. i think that was an unprecedented meeting. i thought it was an extraordinarily good meeting for the american public. i thought it was a good meeting for all of us who participated. i think what the public saw was each side thoughtfully and clearly from an informed basis expressing their view as to what was necessary -- what was needed and how to get to where we wanted to get. it also indicated, i think, to the american public, legitimate differences of opinion on the ways and means, if you will, of affecting health care reform, which obviously the overwhelming numbers of the

american public believe is necessary, as i quoted, as you recall, both poth because ma and presidential candidate mccain in the debate in october of 2004. both said that health care reform was necessary and presidential candidate mccain indicated he thought we needed a program that covered all americans with affordable health care. now, that's the context in which we're going to move forward. i thought it was a productive, positive opportunity for us and as i said the american public. we are moving forward. the president indicated we've been moving forward. the president as you pointed out, i don't think he has a bill yet but he's put language of the 11-page document you've seen that was referenced at the meeting, he's put that on the table. it is obviously an attempt to reach an agreement between the senate-passed bill and the house-passed bill, which is,

although this was not a conference in the classic sense of a conference, in many ways, it was, i suppose, a superconference and that rarely is the president in the room but obviously republicans and democrats are in the room and have their time to discuss presidents' proposals, trying to resolve differences between the two parties. i mean, between the two houses. certainly it's going to be taken into consideration over the next few days, i would think to see whether or not there can be a resolution. in addition to that, i tell my friend, honestly, that we went through a number of aspects of the health care bill in which i think we found common ground and many of us said that. i think some of us were surprised that some members were as focused as we think we are on certain items. first of all, i think there was

agreement on principle, if not on application of that principle, and that was that the solution is to be found in the delivery of health care through the private sector. and in fact, both bills in the senate and the house provide for private sector insurance companies to be involved. and to be the insurers, and to be the agents for financing health care insurance for americans. in addition, dr. coburn was very clear, he thought we needed to focus on wellness, on prevention. there is, in both bills, substantial provisions which deal with that, with wellness and prevention. best practices with innovation, with efficiencies and the delivery of health care, health

information technology, other issues. in addition, he spoke of eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. as you recall, both of us listened to him, he made the point that he thought one in three health care dollars were not spent on the delivery of health care. they weren't all waste, fraud, and abuse, we know there are substantial administrative costs in health care and as i responded to senator coburn, there's substantial provisions related to waste, fraud, and abuse in both bills and in the president's suggestion. in addition, the purchasing of policies of the -- of insurance across state lines was discussed by both sides, i think the president indicated, i think we can reach agreement on that, i hope we do, and insurance pooling to acquire

health insurance at lower prices was also discussed. not only with respect to small business but obviously we discussed it with respect to individuals who do not have availability for policies. the answer to your question is we hope we can move forward and we hope we can reach some areas of agreement. i want to tell you very frankly, i don't think we have any intention of starting over with a clean slate as you requested. to be honest with the gentleman. literally thousands and thousands of hours have gone into countless hearings, participated in by both of our parties. countless markups, public markups with amendments offered, both in the house and senate. but that does not mean that these are set in stone. therefore the answer to your question is, i continue to be

interested in your thoughts, but if the thoughts are simply for -- to, as mr. boehner indicated, to just scrap it and mr. alexander said that as well, i frankly don't think that's a productive direction to go in, given the complexity and challenge that confronts us. there was a lot of discussion about polling data. in yesterday's meeting. in point of fact we believe that the polling data does indicate that americans are not happy with this bill. in my view, in part, they're not happy because they've seen it be the center point of confrontation, controversy, and from my perspective, a lot of misinformation. having said that, i think when you -- i think every poll seems to reflect that when you ask them about component parts, do they believe that pre-existing conditions ought not to be a

disabling factor in the receipt of insurance, a very high percentage of the american public says, yes, they think that ought not to be a factor. do think they -- do they think there ought to be lifetime cap, they think no. if they have insurance, they want to keep it if they get sick, they want to make sure their insurance compensates them. they also want to make sure they're not bankrupted in a year they have a serious illness because the insurance company capped what they can get in any one year. there seems to be on the individual items, a pretty high support, when i say pretty high, high 50's, 60's, sometimes low 70's, of various component parts of the bill. i think if we can respond to that which the public is for and listen to the public, i think we can have some success and we look forward to working with you over the next few weeks to see if we can come to

agreement. the president made it very clear that he wants to do that. i reiterate, we want to do it. but the president also made it clear, if we can't do it, then we're going to proceed. and that's what he told the american people he was going to do. very frankly, he was elected handily just over a year ago and he said what he wanted to do was a health care plan which would provide access to americans to affordable, quality health care. in fact, that's what john mccain said in that debate in october of 2008 when they were both debating one another. that was not a contentious issue. they had differences of how to get there, but covering alm americans with affordable, quality health care was not one of the contentious issues. i know that was a long answer, but i wanted to place in context for my friend so that

productively, we can work on what has passed the house, passed the senate, and if we can make changes that would lead you or members of your party to support legislation, then i think we can have a productive discussion about that. on the other hand, frankly, if it's simply scrap all the work you've done or we're not going to play, then i think we won't have much progress. i yield back to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that in-depth explanation of where he and his side is in this debate and without prolonging this colloquy, i would just say to the gentleman, on display yesterday were clearly two different visions for how we want to address health care in this country. clearly the republicans, by our

attendance there and engagement in that discussion, indicate wed, too, care about people's health care and want to do something to increase the quality, access, and affordability. we just have a very different way of trying to go about it. there are some areas in concept where we do have agreement. we just don't care for the bill. theant reason is, mr. speaker, the bill from our opinion is very much a bill which imposes on people in this country a preferred way of going about providing health care and covering people in terms of their illnesses. and we believe that on balance, it is better to err on the side of people and their individual choices and the way they think their health care should be delivered and in what form. so i look forward to perhaps the gentleman working with us

to see if we could move away, if he doesn't like the word scrap, move away from the construct of the bill which, as the gentleman indicate the public has rejected, as well as a big, significant portion of his caucus has rejected, and perhaps moving away from that construct and to try to address some of the issues that we discussed in a different context would be a way forward, but if, as the gentleman indicates, the majority's unwilling to set aside the senate bill, will the gentleman indicate whether we would then proceed with reconciliation and is it his position that he will not take reconciliation off the table? i yield. mr. hoyer: it is my position in the republican tradition of used regular conciliation for

very major pieces of legislation, all of your tax bills in 2001 and 2003, as a matter of fact, reconciliation has been used 22 times since 1980, 16 of those times was used by the republican party when you were in charge. apparently you thought that was a procedure that was appropriate to pass, as a matter of fact judd gregg when he was criticizing us for criticize regular con sailuation said what's wrong with a majority vote? we think there's nothing wrong with a majority vote. there's a filibuster in the senate, that's under their rules. i think those rules are impeding the work of the american people, but be that as it may, they are the rules. there's also a rule that provides for consideration of legislation through a process that is call red conciliation, a fancy name for simply saying there are things that are important, you can put them on the table and you can pass them

in a time frame but as americans would expect, a majority of the people -- of the representatives of the american people have to vote for it. . it's the expression of the majority leader's expression, we prefer not to use that not because we think it's a wrong procedure but because we'd like to create a broader consensus if we can. i will tell my friend in terms of -- i think he to some degree misquoted me. i think you could draw that inference. the american people don't like the bill because what surrounds it. when you ask them about the internalsf the legislation, as i said they respond positively to it. i'll tell my friend about polls, a lot of discussion about polls yesterday in our

meeting. my friend will recall that we considered expanding the children's health insurance program. you'llble president bush vetoed that program -- you'll recall president bush vetoed that program. you'll recall that i stood on this floor and said do you understand 72% of americans are for expanding schip? notwithstanding that we couldn't get sufficient votes from your side of the aisle to override the president's veto. notwithstanding the fact that 72% of the american people thought that children in the richest country on the face of the earth ought to be covered, healthy, included in our health care system. you saw it differently. i understand that. you used your judgment. i frankly think that the american people want to do what we are trying to do. they want to make sure we do it right and don't undermine the security they now have. and that's our intent as well. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the

gentleman for those remarks. i would ask the gentleman to fshfsh -- if we could turn to the question of jobs. as he indicated that will be the focus over the next four weeks. and the gentleman said earlier in his colloquy that we just participated in a historic event yesterday that he and in his career here has not seen an opportunity like that where both sides sat down with the president for seven hours. and the president spent the time on the issue of health care. in that vain, in terms of trying to open up dialogue and discussion, it would be very appropriate, i believe, mr. speaker, for us to give equal or more time to the pressing issue of jobs in this economy. mr. speaker, leader boehner and i have forwarded the gentleman as well as speaker pelosi a letter indicating that we'd like to have a bipartisan jobs

summit akin to what we had yesterday with the president, but perhaps just in this body. and the speaker's report, press reports have indicated the speaker is willing to engage in such a jobs summit. and i would just like to ask the gentleman if he intends to respond to the leader in my letter and if not certainly responding here just as well as to perhaps a schedule time for such a summit to occur. i yield. mr. hoyer: i think the same letter was sent to both of us. i was yielding to the speaker to respond. but i will respond here. i think that's a good idea. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that. does he have any sense when we could expect the acceptance and scheduling? mr. hoyer: let me talk to the speaker about it and see scheduling. we'll talk to you about it. i think certainly a jobs is an

absolutely critical objective of ours this year as you know, as it was last year. the good news as you know is that c.b.o. says that over a million jobs were created in the last quarter or retained in the last quarter as a result of the recovery and reinvestment act. as the gentleman also knows in the last quarter, the last three months of the bush administration, we lost some, on average per month, 726,000 jobs. as the gentleman also knows on average over the last three months we lost 35,000 jobs. that's an extraordinary, that's 5% of what we lost the last three months just a year ago. so that's progress. we are moving forward. but that's not success. success would be as you and i both know, when we are adding jobs. when we are creating jobs. unfortunately over the last eight years we have had the lowest job production in this country when we have had --

that we have had since herbert hoover. as a result we are very much down in terms of jobs for people who are out of jobs and need jobs. i will tell the gentleman -- i want to also say i want to thank the gentleman and his colleagues on his side of the aisle for their positive participation yesterday. positive in the sense that, yes, we didn't agree, but nobody expected there to be agreement down there. everybody was all of a sudden going to change their perspective on how you get to where we all want to get. but i thought the american people as i said, had an opportunity to see some serious people who had differences of opinion discuss them in a civil and i thought productive manner. i think that's a good civics opportunity for the american people. and very frankly we ought to do more of that because unfortunately all too often they see us on the floor not

uncontentious which we do pretty much working together, but they see us on the contentious where tempers can get hot and the american public draws the inference that that's all we do. they don't like it. i don't blame them. i know you and i don't like it, either. i want to thank you and your colleagues for your participation. mr. can'ter: i thank the gentleman for that. and in closing, mr. speaker, i look forward along with the leader and the rest of my colleagues to begin working with with the gentleman and the majority to start on an earnest attempt to create an environment for job creation so the people in this country can get back to work. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on tuesday next for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore:

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. are there any request for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today because i think it is important to note the change in the economy as we move forward. but the challeng to us as members of congress, even as we reflect on the enormous impact, the investment dollars have

had, last year in january of 2009 we had lost 779,000 jobs. in january of 2010, only 22,000 jobs were lost. and the economy is percolating. but 22,000 is unacceptable. and so we must pass a jobs bill now. but we must also be concerned not only for the recently unemployed, for the white collar workers, but we have to be concerned about the young workers, 18 to 30, we have to be concerned about the chronically unemployed. or the ex-felon who has paid his or her dues, has a family, and other than getting work, they would be dependent on a government handout. they don't want that. so when we talk about jobs we have to worry about seniors and working families and people who have been unemployed for a long period of time. we have to put a job in their hands. that's what i want to do. work to get jobs for the american people in the 18th congressional district. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. bishop of new york for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent that today following the legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes. mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey. 7 -- mr. burton.

mr. defazio. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, besides the question and the need for jobs, i think it is important for america and for my colleagues to know that the meeting yesterday at the white house, at blair house, was a vitally important meeting. i know that many americans were able to see it in its purity, meaning you were able to watch it live. the president intended that we have the opportunity to hear real discussion. and i would beg to differ whether this was an opportunity for just to show and tell.

i have listened to the president's commitment to health care reform. i have listened to the democratic leadership's commitment to health care reform. and i have spent hours listening to constituents through town hall meetings in august and traveling throughout the district. as they speak about jobs, i want us to be very clear, every time i am in the district someone says, are you going to get health care reform passed? this is real meat and potatoes. this is premiums that go up $1,400 to $2,500 a year on a family of four. this is about 36 million to 40 million who are now uninsured. this is about working people who are uninsured. this is about families whose children have asthma or respiratory illnesses or pre-existing conditions and are not able to get insurance because of birth defects or other illnesses that their children are born with. a pre-existing disease.

and presently you cannot get insurance if you have a pre-existing disease. this is likewise about the noncompetitive atmosphere that health carriers live in and that we suffer under. you know what? before we begin discussing this health care reform, we accepted it as the norm. we didn't think anything of it. in alabama, one insurance company in the entire state. in a state like texas, only three insurance companies. that is not competition. that is you take me the way i want you to take me, if you don't like it, move on. that's the kind of atmosphere that health care insurance companies live in. they tell us, move on. pre-existing disease, move on. you can't pay your premiums, move on. you're in the hospital and we don't want to pay it, get out. that's what atmosphere americans are living in. i realize that those who have insurance that they like, they

don't see these horror stories of people dying because they don't have insurance. and i want the people who have insurance to keep their insurance. but 45,000 people die every year because they don't have health insurance. so yesterday's meeting was a serious meeting. because the bottom line of it was, we are listening and we are open, but we have to move on because we are losing people's lives. . premiums will go down. we'll save billions of dollars because of the health care reform process. at the 15eu78 time, i want us to do good. i want to make sure we save on hospitals. many of you probably have been patients in physician-owned hospitals where doctors have come back in and purchased failing hospitals by a small percentage of ownership where their name is on the line, where they want high-quality hospitals, like the 40-plus in

the state of texas, like doctors hospital, like st. joseph's hospital, like the hospital down in the valley where individuals who are paying the amount of money can count on doctors being there who care. so i want this health insurance reform not to close down those hospitals and eliminate those employees who were there. we can do a lot of good and we must pass health care reform. we have to already recognize that we've passed the antitrust exemption so you can have more competition noo these states. we did that this past week, that's a good thing. we've got to make sure we increase chips for our children, children's health insurance program, protect medicare and medicaid and open the flood gates for americans who work and have dignity to have dignity when they are sick. the last thing you want to do is be on your sick bed and to lose your house, your car, your ability to support yourself

while you're losing your job because you're sick. so i simply say that it is time now for the wakeup call to go out amongst all of those who care. america needs to wake up, what america demrands, this legislative body, this people's house acts. i thank the president for transparency, i thank the democratic leadership for transparency, i thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for attending and engaging. but after all is said and done, there are still 45,000 people dying every year because they don't have insurance. mr. speaker, the call is being made, the question is will we answer? i will, for one, answer for health care reform for america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. poe of texas. ms. kaptur. mr. jones. mr. turner.

for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to my longtime staff member and dear friend stacy. as she departs from her distinguished service for the united states congress. she's served as my sheaf of star for four terms. she has served the people of any community with great enthusiasm and will be missed by all who have had the honor of working with her. stacy grew up in calvert county, maryland where her grandparents owned a tobacco farm. ed northern middle and northern high schools and attended st. mary's. after beginning her graduate studies in university of delaware, she enrolled in a fellowship program thought congressional black caucus

program, it was then she began her distinguished hill career serving the representative of washington, d.c., eleanor holmes norton. she served another year after he fellowship and then served with a firm with a development on urban focus, representing clients such as the u.s. conference of mayors. i first met stacy in her work with the u.s. conference of mayors. she formed her own lobbying firm, the barton company, in 1999 and lobbied for many mayors throughout the country. in 2002, stacy closed her firm to serve as chief of staff in my congressional office on the seventh floor of the longworth house office building. she served with great distinction and at times has been the only african-american chief of staff to a republican member in the house or senate. it's been suggested that stacy barton may be the first female

african-american to serve as a chief of staff to a republican member of the house. i dare say she's probably the only staffer from eleanor holmes norton's office to serve as chief of star for a republican's office. her public service has come with many personal sacrifices, including spending time away from her husband lee and her two incredible children, morgan and miles. in addition to the battles fought daily on capitol hill, she's lived with multiple sclerosis, cared for her mother, diagnosed with cancer, and raised a daughter with autism. we have worked together for 10 years. a use leave the seventh floor of longworth this evening, i owe you my sincere thanks and gratitude. i wish you a happy new beginning. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i would like to -- >> mr. speaker, i would like to congratulate polk county judge gibson for his dedication to the people of arkansas. his dedication continues to make an impact for his service and leadership, he's been named the chamber of commerce's 2009 citizen of the year. this is a fitting honor for a man who not only has served the public first as a member of the polk county court for 15 years but since 1999 as the county judge. his service continues beyond the office serving as member of the long list of organizations and boards across arkansas. he spent his life putting his community first, it was just a few short years ago the city of atkins was hit by a tornado. judge gibson was one of the first people at the scene making sure people were taken care of. i appreciate his dedication and

i'm confident that that will continue. the people of polk county are fortunate to have such an exceptional neighborism ask my colleagues today to join with me in honoring judge jim "ed" gibson a wonderful public servant who always will be dedicated to the people of polk county. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speak ears announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king is recognized for 60 minutes as a designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate being recognized to address you here on the floor of the house and in the aftermath of the summit yesterday, the february 25 health care summit that took place and over the seven-plus hours from gavel in to gavel out, the 6 1/2 or so hours of actual dialogue that took place, i think a lot of the american people were watching

and i'd like to think also that a lot of the american people were busy at work and didn't have the opportunity to sit and watch it all in a transfixed, focused fashion like a lot of us tried to do, and some actually succeeded, i had the closed caption crawler going underneath the screen so i tried to pay attention to the flow and book lack -- look back on what happened. i listened to the dialogue in here a little earlier with the majority leader on the democrat side and the whip on the republican side go through their end of the week colloquy that gives us a sense of where we're going next week and a little bit of a feel for how we work together with each other, in fact some of the ho negotiations with taking place in front of the american people in an open fashion as we would like to think that most of our negotiations and deliberations are. i would go back through some of that discussion to put a bit of a different perspective on the situation of the reconciliation which is the nuclear option.

even though the gentleman from maryland continually made the point that republican had used the reconciliation option, democrats called it the nuclear option back then. the means of putting an end to the filibuster, you have two choices in the united states senate. one of them is you come up with 60 votes to break the filibuster, that's called a closure -- a cloture vote. the other is tax and spending issues, so the government doesn't come to a grinding halt, they have a method called reconciliation. now reconciliation will require only 51 votes, not 60 votes in the senate to move a bill. but the point that is missed here today is that reconciliation slash nuclear option depends on the democrats part on whether they're talking about republicans implementing reconciliation or democrats

implementing reconciliation. when the democrats talk about implementing reconciliation they call it the nuclear option. when it's harry reid the democrats seeking to implement reconciliation they say, it's reconciliation. don't you know that's getting together to get things resolved rather than blowing the place up. isn't it something that you can have two different terminologiers in same action and they can be so far apart, 180 degrees apart from each other. democrats commit regular conciliation is reconciliation, warm, fuzzy, group hug, what would you have against a simple majority passing something here in the united states congress. that's their argument. we heard it here earlier. who would be against a simple majority. the second part of it is the nuclear option. the last time republicans discussed the reconciliation tactic in the senate, the democrats continually pounded upon and called it the nuclear

option, was when we were seeking to confirm judges to the federal court. and to get a vote in the federal court, there is a filibuster in the senate. now you can look through the history of this and study who said what, when and all the protocol -- protocol that's part of that. for me, mr. speaker, i take it down to this. when i read the constitution, it requires for confirmation of these federal judges the advice and consent of the senate. it doesn't say the consent of 60 votes in the senate, it says the advise and consent. consent implies the majority of the senate. many of those senators who were opposed to reconciliation because there were democrats in the minority at the time also argued that the president of the united states, president bush, didn't accept enough of their advice. well you can work about this term but any time that the constitution contemplates the concept, it never requires a

supermajority for the consent, it requires a simple majority in the united states senate for consent of the senate, advice and consent. and so, when a confirmation or ratification of a treaty or something that is in our constitution required by the constitution comes up for confirmation in the senate and it revises advice or consent by the constitution, i believe that it is a constitutional violation for the senate to use a filibuster because they're denying the consent of the senate or sending an arbitrary majority after the constitution the fact of the constitution to take it up to 60 vets. so the argument that this republican made in 2005 against a whole series of active democrats that were for the nuclear option was, off constitutional obligation to provide a vote to confirm or not confirm these appointments by the president of the united states. you cannot hold them out to a cloture vote and a filibuster by one senator putting a hold

on an appointment to the supreme court, for example. so it's a constitutional restraint, i've had this debate with many senators on the other side, including a junior senator from iowa who disagreed with me, but in any case that's the republican position we default to the constitution. the democrat position is, republicans use reconciliation, not when it came to confirming judges, for example, that's a simple majority because that is a definition of consent in the senate. so here we are, with this large initiative called, well, i think the president used it yesterday, the term obama care. now thomas jefferson once said large initiatives should not be advanced on slender majorities -- majorities. a slender majority could only be how this large initiative of obamacare to use his term for it, has been advanced through the house by only a three-vote margin and only one republican and i think he's reconsidered

if he had the chance to do it today voted for that bill. many voted against the bill, the margin was so utterly slender and narrow in its majority it can't be defined as anything else except exactly one of those things thomas jefferson warned against doing. when you go to the united states senate they wheeled and dealed in back rooms, happened here on the house side too, until they got down to the night before the announcement of the cloture vote and they made their last deal with ben nelson to exempt nebraska from the increases in medicaid cost. this is a word, mr. speaker, that everyone should be alarmed at when they see it show up in any legal document, in perpetuity. exempt nebraska from the increase in medicaid costs in perpetuity that deal, along with lowering the language of the stupak language in the house, the house language, which did a fairly effective job in preventing federal dollars from being used for

abortions, should the obamacare pass, the senate version of it and the language negotiated by ben nelson certainly rolled this thing back to where there would be more federal dollars used for abortion because of the language change even though they made the argument that there would be an accounting of those dollars. i would say that the nelson language still sent the -- set the federal government up to be the broker of insurance premium dollars that would be directed to insurance companies that were paying for abortions out of those premiums and to compel the american people, to fund something that is to them fundamentally immoral is an unjust thing for this congress to do, we did it inadvertently in the aftermath of roe v. wade in 1973. by 1976, we had implemented language that prevented federal dollars from funding abortions under either the hyde amendment or the mexico city policy but this language in the house allows some.

the senate allows a lot more to go to abortions and i reflect back on my position, mr. speaker, this would have been, i believe in the 1980's or perhaps in the very, very early 1990's, my congressman came to my district and he -- we had a meeting, just a town hall meeting in the basement of the lutheran church, i remember the count of the chairs there, they were mostly full. in fact, all, i believe were likely full. 80 people in the basement of the church at a town hall meeting. pretty good-sized meeting for a little bitity town. as my congressman presented his pitch on his proposal for a national health care act, that was essentially dove tailed into hillarycare later on he asked, how many of you in the room are employers? i remember tremendous numbers, 80 people in the room, 12 of us raised our hands. .

mine was the overwhelm hand that was up, i was the only employer in the room of 80 with 12 employers, the only one that provided health insurance for my employees. and so my congressman walked over to me while i was in the sitting in the front row and he looked at me and leaned down, folded his hands behind hits back, and he said -- his back, and he said, just how much would it change you do business if my health care bill the way i proposed it becomes law? i looked at him and answered the way i usually answer, the front of my mind, tip of my tongue, my answer to my question is how much would it change the way you do business? and i said probably not very much unless you are going to compel me to fund abortion. in that case i quite likely will no longer be an employer. those were the exact words that

i used. so it was essentially said this, that i don't think i can go forward and make a living and take money out of people's paychecks and contribute out of our own asset base of the company and fund a federal machine that is funding abortions that i'm compelled to pay for if i have employees. i could have laid all my employees off. i could have gone off to operate my business alone. cut down on revenue stream substantially, and my stress load. but still under that bill it probably would have compelled me to compare my own insurance but i would have had to fund abortion with. when i made that statement that i quite likely would no longer be an employer if they compelled me to fund abortion through the premiums i would be compelled to pay, that brought the house down. i had no idea that the people in that church felt as strongly about that issue as i believed on that issue and believe today. but that emotion in that church was a solidly held fundamental,

moral and religious principle that remains today stronger than it was then. this nation operating within thd wiin the united states senate could contemplate the idea that they could produce or approve a product called health insurance, confer everyone a new policy that they own, and among those policies set up a health insurance exchange that is going to bring dollars in and flow dollars out that would go to fund abortion clinics? with the majority of the people in america opposed to abortion? and smaller percentage yet that are in favor of abortion, elective abortion, abortion on demand? that is a fundamental moral principle that would be violated. when the speaker of the house at the end of the meeting yesterday chastised the republican leader and said there is no abortion coverage in this bill, it was an incorrect statement.

one might make the argument that the stupak amendment in this house reduced -- they might argue and i think it's an uninformed argument, that the stupak amendment in this house eliminated federal funding for abortion. it eliminated a lot of it and it was a significant step forward. but it didn't eliminate it all, mr. speaker. so the speaker's statement at the president's meeting yesterday at the blair house was incorrect. it was further incorrect because it seems as though that we listen to all the dialogue that unfolded yesterday that the president was negotiating off of the senate version of the bill more so than he was the house version of the bill in which case there is no question that federal funding would flow in and pay for abortions. and at a very minimum, no matter how you argue it, at a very minimum there would be federal funds that would be paying for the administration of abortions and the administration of an exchange that would be brokering policies that funded abortion.

that's how the language works. i have read the language carefully and i know that some of that has been amended and not to the satisfaction of the groups in america. not to my satisfaction either, mr. speaker. we have watched as this unfolded and we ask, what about this reconciliation package that the majority leader seems to speak in support of, although he didn't answer the question directly, he accused republicans of using reconciliation. he didn't actually call it the nuclear option this time. of course he wouldn't because they are loading the gun getting ready to cock the hammer and pull the trigger on the nuclear option. they didn't have us calling it the nuclear option because the american people wouldn't understand how it blows up the system in the united states senate. truthfully we don't have much to say about it from a formal perspective in the house of representatives because we do have a simple majority that controls. we have a speaker of the house that controls the entire protocol from top to bottom. right down to whether there will be a debate here on the floor of the house. whether there will be

amendments offered. what those amendments will be. and who will be able to offer them. it's happened over and over and over again. mr. speaker, the american people need to know this. there is a rules committee that meets up here in the third floor of the house, tiny little room. it is, i believe, the smallest committee room in the house of representatives. it's the least frequented by the press. it doesn't have cameras in it like c-span cameras cover every other committee on this hill. this is the hole in the wall, the third floor at the end of the elevator up there where nobody goes. it's the hole in the wall, the hole in the wall gang and they are directed by the speaker of the house of representatives. they shut down the amendments offered, especially by republicans, unless of course they deem that that amendment would embarrass or divide republicans, in which case they'll allow that to be debated so the republicans can be embarrassed, divided, and have a vote here on the floor. so when i go up there, i offer amendments that i believe are constructive. they are designed to perfect

legislation. designed with things in mind that the founding fathers had when they designed the constitution itself. in other words, it was imagined there would be people of open minds and differing levels of experience that would come together to have a dialogue and discussion about what's good and right for america. and then we get to the formal process of our discussions. first we do hearings and listen -- the american people come in an tell us what they have to say about the policy. presumably the members sitting on the panel don't know as much about the subject matter as the witnesses so we lrn. then we ask questions. and then we go back and do research. then we come back together and decide whether we want to start to move a piece of legislation. in which case in the subcommittee there is a markup process. that is that any member can offer an amendment. they can offer an unlimited amount of amendments, they can debate each of those amendments, five minutes for each member of the committee, and they can ask for a recorded vote an vote it up or down.

that process does take place in the committee. and a lot is outside the scope of what the american people are paying attention to. and then the subcommittee product is designed to go to the full committee. i'll speak about the judiciary committee because we have seen the example this week wherefore the third time in this past year, the judiciary committee, even though there is a relatively legitimate amendment process and debate that takes place there, not on the floor, i wouldn't argue that takes place here on the floor in that fashion with any regularity, but in the committee, it seems to, and three times out of the judiciary committee there's been a republican that has offered an amendment to an important bill, that amendment has passed with bipartisan support, and the product of the committee's work, the product that after the bills are amended and receive a final passage out of the committee,

then they come over to be put on the calendar to be debated on the floor of the house. and the majority leader controls that agenda. and the speaker's power influences it considerably. and the bill does go through the hole in the wall, the rules committee, to be reviewed and consider any amendments other members might want to offer. in a permanent world every bill would come to the floor under an open rule where any member that had a good idea could have the opportunity to convince the other members of the merits of the good idea in the form of an amendment, or perhaps submit themselves to the rejection of the house if the house did not approve such an amendment. what has happened three times just out of the judiciary committee just in the last year has been a bill that was amended by a republican in the judiciary committee that changed by the time it got to the hole in the wall, the rules committee, and was written up differently by committee staff and presented to the rules committee with a different bill number in it that the substance of it changed because they

amended and struck the very legitimate amendments that were voted on by republicans. and democrats. and i will be specific about this. in the bankruptcy bill i introduced an amendment in the judiciary committee that would have banned anyone from receiving relief under the bill for bankruptcy if they had defrauded their lender. now, that vote -- that amendment passed by a vote of 23/3 on the judiciary committee. -- 23-13 on the judiciary committee. curiously when it came back to the floor, it had been patched to the rules committee, given a new number, and almost but not exclusively, but i'll say from my view the only substantive change was they took my language out of the bill that had been approved by democrats and republicans by a vote of 23-3 and inserted language that said, overwhelm if you have been convicted of defrauding can you be denied the benefits

underneath the bill. that's what took place after the fact which renders the very legitimate work of the committee moot. what is the point of meeting and having this discussion and this dialogue, what's the point in the hearings for information, what's the point of the subcommittee and the committee markup and all the staff work and all of the debate that we do and introducing the amendments and voting them up and down, building all that record and building the legitimacy of a proposal, to go to the rules committee and have the product of the judiciary committee pulled down, put through the shredder so to speak, and a whole new bill manufactured with a similar, maybe even identical bill title on it. that's what's going on in this congress. and then the bill comes to the floor under a closed rule so no member can offer to put the language back in. we call this america? the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world?

and this is the draconian approach. if the public doesn't find out unless i come down here and say, mr. speaker, because the hole in the wall gang is controlling this at the direction of the speaker. if anyone is wondering whether i'm embellishing it they could look at the records on the rules committee on the eve of november 7 when the health care bill finally passed here in the house of representatives. on that morning, 1:30 in the morning, i offered 13 separate amendments to seek to perfect -- i couldn't perfect that bill, improve the health care bill. 13 separate amendments i offered them. i offered before the rules committee. and i was chastised by at least one member of the rules committee because i had wasted the paper and the staff time and i should have known that the speaker had ordered that my amendments would not be approved by the rules committee. so i was wasting all their time by making my argument on how to

improve that health care bill. now, i suggest and i'll hold firmly to this, mr. speaker, the franchise that i am interested with by the voters of the fifth district of the state of iowa is every bit as legitimate as the franchise as the speaker of the house, the house majority leader, the house majority whip, any committee chair, subcommittee chair, let alone republican leaders and the ranking members. every one of us has a franchise. we are 1/435 of the american people. the people in my district deserve every bit as much representation in this congress as the people do in any district. but the structure, this iron fisted structure in this house of representatives, that's what breaks down deliberative democracy. it undermines our constitutional republic and it denies the very legitimate knowledgeable input from all across this country. think about how this works.