taken and you'll see it in the volt to provide that kind of a feedback so it doesn't become a safety hazard or a safety issue. i would go further than that and say you know, that there is a possibility that people may be able to download the engine sound of their choice in the new electric vehicles depending on what you feel like. because we're just getting started with this technology and other innovative solutions will be coming along. and finally, as you indicated, the quietness is actually something that we will appreciate when you have stopped at the stop sign or in traffic, not having that kind of a background noise is actually very peaceful and relaxing in terms of the driving experience. so i think in both directions, silence when you want it and the kind of engine sound that you want from a safety perspective, both of those are being addressed. host: dr. prabhadar patil is

the c.e.o. of come pact power, incorporated. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. >> host: we'll continue with our energy series with a focus on natural gas. thursday, wind following technology and friday we wrap things up by talking about solar power. we'll now return to the floor of the house. thanks for being with us. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] deliberations of men but from the hand of god. may this assembly always protect the life and respect the dignity of all human beings. especially those who are too weak and too small to protect themselves. we ask this through christ our lord. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his

approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from wisconsin, congressman kagen. mr. kagen: ladies and gentlemen, please rise and join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for five one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: we have an obligation to the future stop borrowing and spending. and actually tide we are going to meet emergency needs across america and we are going to stop borrowing, but we are going to do something the republicans really hate. we are going to close some

unbelievable, abusive foreign tax loopholes. they are called daisy chain hopscotch dividends deemed in bermuda, the kaymen islands, among other exotics. when we built the greatest country onert -- on earth, corporations paid 40% of the taxes, and today they are paying 7 and the republicans think that's too much. but we have a choice cut $10 billion in abusive foreign tax loopholes an fund our kids' education so we don't have the shortest school years and largest class sizes in america, or continue business as usual to subsidize those corporations and allow them to hide money overseas. i know how the republicans vote. i'm voting with the kids. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? without objection. mr. coble: madam speaker, i make infrequent appearances in the house well, but today i feel obliged to express my disappointment to mrs. obama's

decision to conduct an elaborate vacation in spain. she and members of her entourage are spending lavishly and american taxpayers will subsidize this vacation with lavish payments as well. with the dismal american economy in the tank, this spanish vacation, madam speaker, was ill-conceived, ill-timed, and generously laced with illogical arrogance. it is my belief that the first lady owes an apology to american taxpayers for this exercise in reckless spending. i thank the speaker. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. christensen: thank you, madam speaker. i don't know why my colleagues on the other side have problems with the bill we came back to pass today. i guess it's because it helps poor and middle class people. the education and jobs and medicaid assistance act will

save or create 310,000 jobs in this country. it teaches our children, police m.e.p., and firefighters, and others who keep us safe, it increases medicaid so more poor families can get health care. if this is a special interest bill as they are telling the american people, then those are the kind of special interests democrats have and will always have. people who need our help to go to work every day and take care of their families. republicans would rather continue tax cuts in the wealthiest 1% of people and support corporations who take jobs and send them overseas which would only increase the deficit their policies created in the first place. this bill is paid for and will reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion and is just another example of democrats being responsible with our country's finances and responsive to the needs of our constituents. and their opposition is another example of republicans misleading the people and trying to take us back to the same republican policies that got us here in the first place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> united states marine corps pral max w. donahue enlisted in the marine corps in 2006 from highlands ranch, colorado. and has served two previous combat tours in iraq before deploying to afghanistan. corporal donahue was a military policeman assigned as a working dog handler with the first marine expeditionary force headquarters group, first marine expeditionary force, camp pendleton, california. before he was deployed to afghanistan, he explained to his mother why he wanted to go there. there's not a lot of guys who do what i can do, and my buddies need me there, recounted his father -- his mother. on august 4, corporal donahue was on a mission in afghanistan

with his german shepherd when he was gravely wounded by an improvised explosive device and tragically succumbed to his wounds on friday, august 7, 2010. corporate max w. donahue is a shining example of the united states marine corps service and sacrifice. as a retired marine combat veteran, my deepest sympathies go out to his family, his fellow marines, and all who knew him. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stupak: madam speaker, today's legislation clearly demonstrates the differences between the two parties. congressional republicans have made their choice clear. the g.o.p. is calling for an extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest few and saddling americans with nearly $700 billion in debt versus our democrat paid-for bill that

creates 310,000 jobs for hardworking americans. our legislation will save or create more than 310,000 american jobs for teachers, firefighters, police officers, and nurses. these funds are needed now to prevent layoffs and actually rehire teachers and prevent law enforcement officers from losing their jobs. bottom line is congressional republicans would rather extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest few and saddle americans with a $700 billion debt. our democratic legislation is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to ship american jobs overseas. congressional republicans admit they want to take us back to exact same failed policies of the bush administration that drove us in this economic ditch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? without objection. >> madam speaker, this weekend we received sad and disturbing news from afghanistan as 10 humanitarian aaid workers, six americans, were killed in a

barbaric taliban attack. mr. pitts: among those killed was one of my constituents, glenn lap, of lancaster, as well as brian whose family i worked with. the team leader, tom little, served with his wife and taughters in afghanistan for over 30 years. they were ambushed while traveling from an isolated village where they provided eye care and other medical assistance. the group they were working with, international assistance mission, has been working in afghanistan for decades. reaching out to heal the sick and restore sight. because of the barbaric actions of the taliban and senseless killings, the people of afghanistan will lose the valuable assistance of individuals with special medical skills to help those living far away from modern medical services. i know that glen, brian, and tom and all of the volunteers will be dearly missed and we honor them for their courage and love for the afghan people and their service to them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from new jersey rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, just say no. that's not a solution. the democrats in the house of representatives want to find solutions and pay for them. and that's what we are doing. earlier this year 42 governors wrote to us and said they needed help paying for health care for the poorest people in their states and they these 42 governors were out of money. so the democrats came up with a solution to provide money to these states so that they could provide health care to their poorest people and we found a way to pay for every penny of it. and not add a penny to the deficit. mr. rothman: help those poor people who needed it, help the governors, and reduce the burden of taxes on local and state taxpayers. we did it by cutting loopholes for corporations who are getting a tax break for taking their companies overseas.

see who votes which way. the democrats came up with the solution. we pay for every penny of it. we are helping the states, the taxpayers, and those in need. we are moving the country forward. we will not allow this country to go back to the policies that brought us to the brink of disaster. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, how bad does it have to get? over 20 million americans are out of work or have given up looking for work. federal spending is out of control and congressional democrats won't even propose a budget. the administration intentionally takes actions to weaken immigration laws. federal judges assault our time tested values. and the administration wants to hike taxes on individuals, small businesses, and

investments which will kill jobs. how bad does it have to get before americans reclaim our country? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? without objection. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i rise today to support the legislation we are voting on in a few hours. it isn't perfect, but it will provide critical assistance to states' strapped budgets. it will save or create more than 300,000 jobs. now, during the debate over restoring the unemployment insurance program, the republicans whined out here on the floor that the bill wasn't paid for. i will remind them the bill before us is paid for and will reduce the deficit by nearly $is.5 -- $1.5 billion. so we shouldn't hear one single word from now until 3:00 about

it ain't paid for. it is paid for. and i'll say it again on the same 300,000 jobs. still, i bet every republican will vote no. why? not because they think it's a bad policy. but because they want to do everything in their power to make certain that president obama can't get this country going again. they have been dragging their feet for 18 months, 20 months now. come on, november, i think they are going to find it's a dumb policy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: madam speaker, instead of calling congress back into session to protect special interest unions and add more tax increases, we should be focusing on policies that give american families incentives to invest and create jobs. americans should be concerned now about the job-killing bill

and the tax increase we are likely to see before the end of the year. also after the election in november, washington liberals will try to ram through a national energy tax, and continue to skyrocket america's deficits with reckless spending. in an effort to prevent this job-killing lame duck tactic, i support congressman tom price's resolution that eliminates a lame duck session. this promises critical in order to represent the will of the american majority who have serious concerns about reckless spending and more taxes. as over 20 million citizens are out of work or have given up looking for work. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6080. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6080, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 6080. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. price: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: madam speaker, i ask to urge the adoption of h.r. 6080. violence on the mexican side of the border has intensified because of turf battles among murderous transnational criminal organizations competing for drug, alien and weapon trafficking business. the bill would provide $600 million to enable the department of homeland security, the department of justice and the judiciary in cooperation with the national guard to counter this threat building on the current border enforcement surge. this funding is urgently needed to counter the pressures our law enforcement agencies on our border communities currently face. madam speaker, the bill is fully offset. it includes a $100 million reduction in the department of

homeland security's border security infrastructure and technology account due to an ongoing reassessment of the s.b.i. net program. the bill also increases for five years the costs for two visas which permits foreign workers to come and work in the united states. these fee increases would apply only to companies with more than 50 employees and for whom the majority of their work force is visa-holding foreign workers. the house passed a very similar version of this border security supplemental two weeks ago partially offset and partially on a well-justified emergency basis. because the senate amended the house-passed bill we're voting on it today. the senate added the visa fee increases. because of the constitutional requirement that revenue generating bills initiate in the house, the bill before us today has been introduced as a new bill but with provisions identical to the senate-passed bill.

therefore, should the house approve this bill today, it will need to be taken up by the senate, hopefully at the earliest possible date. for the department of homeland security, the bill provides a total of $394 million, including $176 million to hire 1,000 new border patrol agents. that funding will bring us to a total of 21,370 border patrol agents, a 70% increase since 2006. $68 million to retain 270 customs and border protection officers and hire 250 additional officers. with this bill there will be over 20,700 c.v.p. officers working to enhance port of entry operations. $32 to procure two additional unmanned aircraft systems. $80 to u.s. customs and immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e. this includes $30 million to pay for four new border enforcement security task forces, training and support for mexican law enforcement partners and a staffing surge

for i.c.e.'s criminal alien removal efforts. the remaining $50 million will be used to hire additional i.c.e. investigators, intelligence analyst for a permanent expansion of i.c.e.'s presence on the bothered. -- border. $6 million to construct two forward operating bases, new forward operating bases for the border patrol. for the department of justice, the bill provides $196 million in support of investigations and crime control along the southwest border, including $38 million for the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, $34 million for drug enforcement administration, $30 million for the u.s. marshal service and $24 million for the federal bureau of investigation. finally for the judiciary, the bill provides $10 million to have increased workload requirements.

i want to recognize especially, madam speaker, the hard work of our border state representatives who were instrumental in getting the supplemental border security bill initially passed. they have signaled their full support for the house to take up this latest version from the senate and we will hear from a number of them during this debate this morning. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to adopt this bill to address these critical border security challenges which while they are most acute on the southwest border constitute a serious national threat which we ignore at our peril. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: madam speaker, it's been now 47 days, almost six weeks, since our subcommittee marked up the fiscal 2011

appropriations bill that would fund the department of homeland security. 47 days. normally after you mark up a bill in subcommittee it immediately goes to the full committee and then immediately to the floor of the u.s. house for us to act on the entire appropriations for the entire department of homeland security. for some reason the democrat leadership in the house chose to delay the markup of the funding bill for the department of homeland security now six weeks. and instead they're bringing up this piecemeal supplemental bill that would make a nice amendment to the appropriations bill for the department of homeland security, if we could get that bill to us. and this supplemental, if

passed, has to go back to the senate who's gone for the summer before it can become law even if we pass it here. and, number two, it won't take effect until next year. so, madam speaker, i'm asking, why are we here? why did we come back for this because it can't take effect until next year and it can't take effect until the senate comes back to pass on it and they're gone until september, so why are we here? i don't know. i don't know. 47 days that we've been waiting to bring up the funding for the whole department of homeland security. homeland security. flip antley dealt with by the democrat -- flippantly dealt

with by the democratic majority. now, here's what this bill won't do. this bill won't address the massive and inexplicable cuts that the president proposed to cut the coast guard and to the customs and bureau protections ariel -- areial surveillance system. and the president slashed the border assets. the subcommittee in our markup corrected that but we can't get that bill to come onto the floor. this bill won't do enough to improve our interdictions capabilities and stop the flow of drugs into northern mexico and through the source and transit zones. this bill won't address any of

the post-christmas day attack needs for aviation security or watch listing, all of these would -- were dealt with in the regular bill if we could get it before the house, but this piecemeal approach doesn't work. and this bill surely won't address the numerous other homeland security challenges facing the country that range from emergency preparedness to immigration enforcement to cybersecurity. simply put, this bill does nothing to make up for the fact that the fiscal 2011 homeland security bill is nowhere in sight. why are we taking up this piecemeal approach? so it's all about, i guess, politics. it's all about politics. i ask the majority, where's the bill? bring us the bill. we can amend it with this

supplemental, make a modest change in the bill. just bring us the bill. madam speaker, our country's facing many grave threats to our security. in the wake of the christmas day, times square and for the hood -- fort hood terrorist attacks and with the drug war raging along our border, it's a complete dereliction of duty by the democratic majority to avoid moving the fiscal 2011 homeland security appropriations bill. so let's be absolutely clear about what we're doing here today. yes, we are improving, we would improve the house democrats' incomplete and deficit-increasing border security supplemental, but this bill won't take effect until next year. why are we here?

according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, not a single dime of this bill will be spent until fiscal 2011. if they had brought forth the homeland security appropriations bill for the whole department, we could have avoided a supplemental altogether. we could have made the changes in that bill that this bill suggests, perhaps, and all would have been fine. homeland security would again have reached its importance that has -- that it has in the past. but homeland security is second thought to the majority, apparently, because they won't bring us the bill. so what that tells me is that we should be addressing all of our homeland security issues

here today, not just putting a band-aid on some of our udgent border security needs with this is up -- urgent border security needs with this supplemental. in fact, this supplemental, as i said, have made a very worthwhile amendment to the full homeland security appropriations bill if the majority would bring it out and let it be discussed. but they control the rules and they've said no. we don't want to discuss the whole matter of homeland security. we want to address just these small pieces of it. so, again, we ask, where's the bill? and why are we here? the fact of the matter is that the democrat majority should be governing and congress should be addressing our urgent security needs in the most responsible and disciplined way

possible. sadly, as demonstrated by the democrat majority's repeated attempts to bend the rules and their lethargic pace and inaction on critical security issues like funding for our brave troops, that is certainly not the case this year. the bottom line is, we desperately need to get our homeland security right. we need to address our security needs with real solutions, not partial fixes that circumvent regular order and that employ questionable offsets as this bill does. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: madam speaker, our distinguished ranking minority member has asked a legitimate

question and that is, where is the 2011 regular homeland security bill? he says, it's nowhere in sight. he knows very well it's clearly in sight. the 2011 homeland security appropriations bill has been marked up in subcommittee, it's been put together with full bipartisan participation. it directly addresses the coast guard and border security matters that he has stressed, and this emergency measure here today in no way detract from that. but this is an emergency. this is something that needs to be urgently addressed. unfortunately, the senate earlier stripped out these border provisions from the supplemental appropriations bill, and so we're here today, here today passing this and getting this done at the earliest possible moment. i'd like to yield two minutes to a subcommittee member who's been an important participant in putting this effort together, mr. rodriguez from

texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. rodriguez: madam speaker, thank you. mr. chairman, i want to thank the chairman for his great work on this issue. he's been the champion on the issue use that have been in responsive to the needs of our borders. border security is one of my highest priorities. i represent 785 miles of the mexican border, more border with mexico than any other member of congress. as the vice chairman of the homeland security appropriations committee, we have made -- making our border more secure a high priority. earlier this month, the house passed supplemental appropriations bill that continued funding for operation iraq in afghanistan and it included $701 million in much-needed border security funding. this is funding that our men and women on the border are asking for and need to get the job done. we all know the violence in mexico has escalated. we need to ensure the u.s. borders are not left

vulnerable. this new vulnerable is much smaller than the previous one that was cut by the senate. this bill does not have the operations -- a much-needed program that is supported by many bipartisan members. nonetheless, i support the chairman on this effort. i thank him for his leadership. and this bill will target funds just as the previous house-passed supplemental did, and this includes additional 1,000 border patrol agents, 250 additional officers at our ports of entry which are critical and important at this point in time. this is a significant step towards securing our border, and i want to thank the chairman for his leadership in this area, in assuring that the border becomes a priority. and with that i yield the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield such time as he may consume to the ranking republican on the committee, mr. lewis from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lewis: thank very much, madam speaker. i very much appreciate my

colleague yielding. i thank not only the gentleman for yielding but the chairman as well for their cooperative working relationship with me. on the other hand, madam speaker, it really pains me to have to be here today and comment on this urgency bill. securing our borders, destroying the ruthless drug cars tells and enforcing immigration laws should be among our highest priority. why are we here today with only seven weeks remaining in this fiscal year debating a supplemental that c.b.o. says will not take effect into next year? we can solve problem for 2010, it can't be enforced until next year. it will have to go back to the senate because of the way it's structured. there is no plan to complete the vital f.y. 2011 homeland security and defense appropriations bills. the chairman mentioned that the homeland bill has been marked up, etc. it will not be in the full committee. no chance to amend it on the

floor, etc. it's business as usual. this bill is only on the floor today to allow the democratic majority to claim that they care about border security. it won't go into effect soon. it won't solve our border problems. and make a mockery of our annual appropriations process where these problems should be handled. even the bill's $600 million worth of new spending is paid for with questionable tactics. avoiding cuts to wasteful government spending, the democratic majority is penalizing businesses with increased fees. how are de facto tax increases going to increase jobs and help our economy? and we'll be paying for these so-called emergency funds for some time because they will result in increased operating costs for future years as well. madam speaker, with the drug war continuing to escalate along the southwest border and the state's clamoring for help

and with the cost of illegal immigration, the american people expect real solutions from congress. instead, we have another round of throwing money at problems with no real understanding of how we got to get out of this mess. we should have already completed fiscal year 2011 appropriations bills for homeland security and defense as has been suggested and taken care of these problems in an orderly and rational way. instead, we are left with haphazard schemes that seem more like political cover than real budget solutions to our security. this is not the way the congress should get its work done. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. cuellar, another of our border members, and the chairman of our authorizing subcommittee onboarder maritime and global terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. guy yar: thank you, madam speaker -- mr. cuellar: thank you, madam speaker. i certainly want to thank the chairman, chairman price, for this emergency funding to be allocated to the department of homeland security and department of justice for enhanced southern border security and all the border members, i as a border member understand why this is important. also want to thank the ranking member, mr. lewis, also mr. rogers, for the work they are doing on this issue also. we join here today at a critical juncture of our border and homeland security. now more than ever we need to allocate additional resources to our border. as the chairman for border maritime global and counterterrorism, and the congressman who represents 250 miles of the texas-mexico border, where i drink the water, breathe the air, i can tell you that communities i represent are on the frontline of our nation's border and homeland security. i originally got an official briefing by the assistant secretary, mr. morton. got some of the most up-to-date

threats facing us in our border and certainly for our members. i would like to show you some video for anybody that's interested in seeing what's happening across the river. the threat is real and we need to take action now. whether it's the i.c.e. agents, a.t.f., judiciary, our prosecutors we are trying to add for our land ports, airports. this is important. i am disappointed the senate took out the operation stone garden. we are working with chairman price to put that money back because that money's important for our local law enforcement. so, madam speaker, as a member of the border i certainly ask the house and senate leadership to support this and other border secure funding. this is not a texas issue. nor a partisan issue. this is an american issue for the safety. we stand up today for our community and for our federal, state, and local law enforcement to give them the additional resources that they need to secure our border. timely this is one step in a

critical step forward. and our ability to detect, deter, and disrupt the illegal activity along the u.s.-mexican border. madam speaker, i give up the remaining time that i have. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from contract contract -- kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: madam speaker, i would now like to yield two minutes to ms. giffords, a member, another border member from arizona, who from her first day here has worked tirelessly on this border security issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona virginia tech. ms. giffords: thank you chairman price, i appreciate your leadership on this issue and the other border members who understand the difficult situation we have. repeatedly we heard from our colleagues across the aisle why are we here? why are we here? we are here because we are sent here by our constituents to be their voices in washington. and my constituents are the

most heavily impacted in terms of illegal immigration. my sector had over 240,000 apprehensions, over 1.2 million pounds of marijuana seized last year. mr. chairman, that's why we are here. we are here because residents in my district are sick and tired of all of the partisan bickering and the political games around securing the u.s.-mexican border. that's why we are here. we heard from across the aisle it's about politics. let me tell you about politics. this is the third time that we are here. the first time we are here on july 1, the second time on july 28. and now here on august 10. the house is saying yes to more border patrol agents on the ground. we are saying more yes to agent supported entry. we are saying yes to more forward operating bases. why are we here? we are here because the congress cannot turn its back on the american people. and those people who are most heavily impacted by illegal immigration.

we are here because the senate has refused to do the responsible thing and yet again for the third time has sent this back to here. politics, the senate needs to come back and deal with this issue. for all of the talk about securing the border and protecting american citizens, here we have an opportunity to actually do that, and we are not. we are here because my constituents are sick and tired of all the political rhetoric. they want to see us get the job done. this should be a bipartisan issue. and i urge the senate to return immediately to pass this bill. mr. price: will the gentlelady yield? ms. giffords: absolutely. mr. price: is the gentlelady aware when the president first proposed his first budget for the department of homeland security, this year, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. rogers: i yield the gentlelady two minutes. is the gentlelady aware that the president proposed to cut the border patrol in his budget submission to the congress?

ms. giffords: to me it doesn't matter what the president of the united states opposes along the united states-mexico border. i am a member of the united states congress i'm sent here by my constituents to fight for the needs. excuse me that is why -- mr. rogers: that is why. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has the time. the gentleman yielded to her. miss give fords: that is why it is so important to have the national guard deployed on the border. we are here because today the national guard is deploying to arizona and the southwest border. they were designed to be deployed not in a vacuum but with increased members of the border patrol that will be trained -- mr. rogers: will the -- wouldn't you prefer that the congress pass the whole bill for the department of homeland security rather than this piecemeal approach? ms. giffords: for my constituents, the people that reside in my district, what matters is we get the job done. they don't care about all of

the pat zarn back and forth and this and that. mr. rogers: the point is they are not getting the job done because we will not pass the regular bill. ms. giffords: it's my time. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentlewoman controls the time. ms. giffords: when the national guard was finally deployed earlier this month which took a lot of work for many of us to have the national guard back on the border, they were designed to be deployed not in a vacuumment they were designed to have members onboarder patrol trained up so that the guard wouldn't have to be there foreevery and we would have increased foreign operating bases, that we would have the beefing up at the ports of entry. this was all designed with this emergency supplemental funding in mind. and the senate blew it. again. this is not a partisan issue. this is something that democrats and republicans can do to fight for what's right for the people of america.

madam speaker, serve on that -- in the house armed services committee. we pass very large budget security -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker -- mr. price: i believe it's the gentleman from kentucky's term. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. rogers: i understand the gentlelady from arizona's frustrations. in fact, i sympathize with her. i made the same argument she just made in trying to bring up to the floor of this house the funding bill for the entire department of homeland security. for the coast guard, and for the secret service, and for the border patrol and for all of the other agencies, the 22 that make up the department. i made those arguments why are we wasting time? let's get on with it. and yet the majority will not

bring up the bill that funds the whole department. we could have cured this months ago. it's been six weeks. since we passed the bill in the subcommittee that would have taken care of all these problems. and, yes, i want to see politics out of it, too. but you're in control. and you won't let us bring that bill to the floor. instead we are faced with this little piecemeal bill here. trying to correct the president's slash of the border patrol when he submitted his budget to the congress. so, yes, i sympathize with the gentlelady. i wish we could get that bill up here, too. and stop playing politics with national security. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve? mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: madam speaker, i

would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished member of our authorizing committee, representative jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. i'm very glad the democrats are doing the responsible and that we know we need to be doing more. this is an important step because it substitutes for some of the misguided legislative initiative that states are promoting such as arizona and texas. i know that there is a sense of desperation, but we on this side of the border have to ensure and have to be able to move forward onboarder security and as well for those of us who are arguing vigorously for the comprehensive approach, addressing the needs of so many who are here simply wanting to work. we have to look to both directions. so i am rising to support this bill and this legislation. recognizing that there are people who are crying their

heart out saying when is this congress going to do comprehensive immigration reform? just as we have to clean this up, we have a problem and those on the other side of the aisle not recognizing we have to do this as a holistic package. but the border patrol agent funding, the c.d.p. funding, $6 million to hire 250 new customs and border protection is important. the tactical communications is important. for those of us who live on the border or been to the border, who know border areas, we understand that the value of this is also to save lives. save the many people who are coming here for work, but are dying in the desert, children, women who are coming here, yes, out of desperation, but still they are coming and dying in these deserts. this has to be stopped. and we do need more money for a.t.f. and d.e.a. in my own city of houston, it is a center point, unfortunately, for a lot of drug cartels and drug running and -- and gun running. i know that there is an emergency. it is relevant to do this

today. but i wish my friends as well would stop blocking up to looking holisticallies at real comprehensive immigration reform so people who want to come here to work can. so young people who want to go to school can. so families who are innocent and want to be here without being jeopardized by phony laws can stay here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. . members should heed the gavel. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the ranking republican on the judiciary committee, mr. smith of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky, a senior member of the appropriations committee, for yielding me time. madam speaker, i support the passage of this bill. additional funds for border security are always a step in the right direction. but if the democrats were serious about immigration

enforcement, they would include more funds for interior enforcement. u.s. immigration and customs enforcement says it doesn't have enough resources to enforce our immigration laws. yet, this bill contains no funds for enforcement that is needed to protect jobs for citizens and legal immigrants. last week an illegal immigrant drunk driver killed a nun and critically injured two others. he had two earlier convictions for drunk driving. if i.c.e. had sufficient funds for enforcement, this tragedy could have avoided. madam speaker, in many ways this bill represents an opportunity loss and i regret that even though i support passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: madam speaker, i have no further speakers and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized.

mr. rogers: madam speaker, i have no further requests for time as well. do i have -- do i close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina has the right to close. mr. rogers: well, then, madam speaker, i will yield myself such time as i may consume for closing. again, i wish we had, madam speaker, the bill that funds the entire department of homeland security before us instead of this piecemeal approach. i don't fathom why the majority will not bring forth that bill that's been marked up since -- 47 days ago. six weeks. and yet they refuse to bring it out and instead bring this piecemeal bill out there that only deals with one small aspect, not small, but a particular aspect of the entire homeland security bill.

and number two, as i've said before, even if we pass this bill here, it still has to go back to the senate. before it could become law. and they're gone until the middle of september. and this bill won't spend any money until next year anyway. so that's why i say, why are we doing it this way? why can't we just bring up the bill and deal with it? it includes all of this as well. and yet the majority refuses to do that. it's all about politics, madam speaker. we're all concerned about that border, about the crime that's taking place, about the illicit drugs coming across, illegal people coming across, and we have devoted so much of the nation's energy and moneys to try to seal that border, to

little effect, it seems. and yet, if we had the whole department of homeland security budget here on the floor so that we could at once deal with the coast guard, with secret service, with border patrol, with enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration, if we had all those matters before us we could deal with it holistically but they won't do it. instead, we have this bill which won't become law until next year anyway. so i ask the speaker, why did you call us back in session on this bill knowing that it could not become law until next year anyway? puzzling. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: madam speaker, it seems that a good part of this debate this morning has been about what this bill is not.

now, both sides have mentioned the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and i couldn't agree more. we cannot enforce our way out of this immigration challenge, and i tell you, i've never met a border security officer who claims otherwise. this is a much broader challenge than simply enforcement or securing the border. i would hope most members understand that and understand the urgency of moving ahead on compre hencive immigration -- comprehensive immigration reform, but what is before us this morning is an emergency measure dealing with some border security challenges arising from the cartel violence and gang activity in mexico which requires an emergency response, an immediate response, a targeted response, and that's what this bill provides.

we've also heard a great deal about the regular appropriations bill, the 2011 homeland security appropriations bill. indeed, this emergency supplemental is not the regular bill, but it is not a substitute for the regular bill. in fact it is just what it says, it's a supplement to the regular bill, a supplement aimed at a specific problem designed to address this critical situation out on the southwest border, which our colleagues from the border have testified to very convincingly here this morning. the 20 is 1 homeland security bill is alive -- the 2011 homeland security bill is alive and well. it has been assembled on a bipartisan basis after months of hearings and discussion. it has been approved at the subcommittee level and members will be seeing that bill very shortly and we will -- we will have the appropriation in place in a timely fashion for the

department for 2011. and believe me, many of these items in the supplemental, you'll be hearing from us again. the best teams, that's a -- that is the border enforcement security task forces. that's a proven technique. the forward operating bases. and, of course, the beefing up of the border patrol and the c.v.p. officers. all of these things are ongoing challenges. but they are also immediate challenges. this is a supplement to the original bill. this is true when we passed it in early july and it's still true today. what we're doing today is compensating from the fact that this bill was dropped by the senate . the senate fortunately passed this bill and we're now passing the bill they passed so as to expedite the targeting of these funds for the immediate problem in the southwest. so this is a targeted bill, a much-needed bill. we've had ample testimony to that effect, and i urge

colleagues to support it here this morning. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time having expired, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6080. 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 bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: madam speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1606 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 231. house resolution 1606. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 1586, to modernize the air traffic control system, improve

the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the united states, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system, re-authorize the federal aviation administration, and for other purposes, with the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the house, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

section 2, the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of august 11, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. without objection. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: madam speaker, for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the senate amendment to h.r. 1586 and makes in order a motion by the chair of the appropriations committee to concur in the senate amendment.

the rule waives all points of order against the motion. the rule provides that the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the committee on appropriations, the committee on energy and commerce and the committee on ways and means. finally, the resolution waives the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 which requires a 2/3 vote to consider a resolution from the rules committee on the same day that it's reported. the waiver applies through any legislative day of wednesday, august 11, 2010. most of my colleagues here today, madam speaker, have interrupted our important activities back home in their districts to be here for this unusual but not unprecedented august session. as we stand here today, madam speaker, debating assistance for states and school districts across the country, i can't think of a better reason for members to rush back to the capitol than to invest in our children and in our future.

we're here today to extend the lifeline to teachers and classrooms across the country to ensure that students and our future are not mortgaged by a weak economy, that it's for states -- that is forcing states into drastic cutbacks. despite the failure of the senate to pass this bill until it finally passed last week, the urgency is real and the need is real as well. this legislation saves or creates 310,000 american jobs, specifically for teachers, police officers, firefighters and nurses. in colorado this bill will save the jobs of 2,600 teachers. yes, madam speaker, absent the passage of this bill, class sizes will be larger for students across the state and we'll be mortgaging our future because of the current recession. these funds will go immediately to states and prevent layoffs. in some cases rehire teachers

that have already been given notice as summer comes to an end just in time for when students come back to school. students in washington, d.c., will be in session a week after next. schools in colorado will start in the next two to three weeks as well. this is paid for, primarily closing tax loopholes, that encourages corporations to ship american jobs overseas. not only is this bill paid for, madam speaker, but this bill cuts the deficit by $1.4 billion. it never fails to surprise me when some of my colleagues talk about the spending of congress, this, that or the other. but here today before us, madam speaker, is a chance to cut the deficit. what an important and justifiable reason for us to return here to washington in august to cut the deficit. these funds will assist states so they can keep qualified teachers in classrooms, pay firefighters and police officers, to keep our neighborhoods safe.

we need to do everything in our power to ensure that the american people are protected during this recession and that our children are educated. widespread layoffs in the public security and education sectors wouldn't only hurt the schools and children but would further depress the economy. these men and women who work in these professions, madam speaker, are the backbone of our nation and our economy. now that the measure is before us with bipartisan support from the senate, i hope all of our colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and quickly moving to a final vote so that we can expeditiously get the money out to those who need it. i encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.

mr. dreier: i want to again by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend on the rules committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i'd like to say, madam speaker, that this special emergency session called unexpectedly in the -- at the beginning just after a week of the district work period to pass another $26.1 billion in spending is in fact washington, d.c., at its absolute worst. . everything that americans have come to hate about their government, the way the government works, the waste, the ineptitude, the cynicism, the lack of accountability, the utter disregard for the concerns of taxpayers is all very vividly on display right here today. now, one must ask the question, how is it that we got here? how is it that we got here? well, under the leadership of speaker pells, we've made history -- speaker pelosi, we've made history.

for the first time we've failed to budget, we've failed to pass a budget for the first time in the modern era. in the absence of a budget, a budget road map, the leadership on the other side of the aisle has legislated recklessly and haphazardly passing 1/6 of the appropriations bills. i'm happy to see the chair of the appropriations committee. while irresponsibly approving new emergency spending outside of regular order. the political could he newspaper we read every morning described it as follows, i quote. they described this as a fiscal policy meltdown and an unprecedented failure. how is it possible, madam speaker, how is it possible this democratic majority could fail so miserably at its constitutional duty?

was it something more willie than ineptitude? ineptitude certainly goes a long way towards explaining the failings that have taken place upped speaker pelosi. their work has been so shoddy and riddled with oversights, mistakes, and loopholes that countless corruptions over the last 3 1/2 years have been necessary. today's underlying bill doesn't even have a title. madam speaker, the bill doesn't even have a title thanks to their haphazard way of doing business. in its mad rush the senate passed the blank act of blank. this bill has no title. they literally neglected to fill in the blanks. god only knows whether mistakes have been made here, madam speaker. the ineptitude alone only goes so far in explaining the democratic majority shortcomings. as "the washington post" editorialized last week i quote, to govern is to choose

and nothing lays bear a government's true priorities like the choices it makes about spending taxpayers' money. madam speaker, this gets to the heart of why the annual budget is so critically important. it lays out the american -- for the american people what the priorities of the majority of this institution are. whatever gimmicks they may employ to shield themselves from accountability, the budget lays out in black and white the agenda that the majority has. it also forces the majority to make choices, tough choices, faced with a host of needs a budget forces the majority to choose which are the most important items. if times are tough the budget forces the majority to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending. this presents quite a predicament for a majority that was nothing more than to tax

and spend. today's emergency bill is just another in a long line of unaccountable spending bills that has sup planted the regular budget and appropriations process simply because this majority quite obviously is not up to governing. some of the funding contained in this bill is no doubt very worthy. our teachers, nurses, and cops deserve our full support. i concur with my colleagues' remarks on those priorities. let me say our teachers, nurses, and cops deserve our full support. no one disputes that. these are precisely the kinds of top priorities that should be funded in the regular budget process. madam speaker, teachers, nurses, and cops should not be used as pawns in a cynical political game held hostage by the democratic majority's failure to govern responsibly.

contrary to the quote that i read in politico last week from speaker pelosi, republicans, democrats, and independents alike all want to see teachers in the classroom, nurses in the emergency room, and cops on the beat. not in the unemployment line, as the speaker claimed republicans wanted to see. let me repeat. while speaker pelosi offered this quote, republicans, democrats, and independents want to make sure that teachers are in the classroom, that nurses are in the emergency room, and that cops are on the beat. if the democratic majority, madam speaker, had done their job in an appropriate and timely way, our teachers, nurses, and cops would not be on the chopping block. today's emergency vote is a function of the failures of this democratic leadership. but this bill is about more than teachers, nurses, and cops. some of the spending in this

bill is unjustifiable under any procedure. we are told by the democratic majority that the federal taxpayers must bail out struggling states. let's take a look at why states are looking for a bailout in the first place. one needs to look no further than my state of california. the largest state in the union. i'm very sorry to say that it provides the perfect example of the fiscal disasters that are inevitable in the absence of transparency and accountability. the people of southern california over the past few weeks have become outraged over astronomical salaries for certain officials. the most egregious example has been the city manager of bell, california. bell, california, madam speaker, is a town of 36,000, just east of downtown los angeles. the city manager, robert rizzo, was receiving an annual compensation package of $1.5

million. the city manager of a tiny, frankly not very, very wealthy town just east of downtown los angeles, robert rizzo, was receiving a compensation package of $1.5 million a year. he resigned in the wake of a scandal within the past week and now he'll only collect an annual pension of almost $1 million a year. it's not just the taxpayers of this tiny town of 36,000 bell, california, who are on the hook. because of the pension structure is put in place in california, my constituents and the constituents of our other california colleagues will be forced to pay a significant portion of robert rizzo's lavish nearly $1 million pension. the problems in california go well beyond one wildly overpaid

city manager and a broken pension system. the state legislature's failure to enact a budget is costing the state $1.5 billion in deficit spending with every single month that goes by. it created a fiscal nightmare, they taxed the people of california to the drink, and now they have turned the beleaguered federal coffers once again. thanks to the democratic majority's policy of never-ending bailouts, there's not a taxpayer in this country who isn't on the hook for astonishingly reckless spending priorities just like these. we've got to put a stop to these dangerous policies once and for all. we need to put an end to the never-ending cycle of bailouts, emergency spending, deficits, and debt. instead, we need to return to regular order to pass a budget and fund our top priorities through the regular accountable

process while doing everything we can to ferret out and cut waste, fraud, and abuse. and finally, madam speaker, we need to put an end to the practice of haphazard, unaccountable legislating. madam speaker, arrogance and ineptitude are a lethal combo. we'll be paying the consequences for generations to come. if we don't change the course right now. i urge a no vote on this rule and i yield back the balance of my time. -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, most teachers, firefighters, nurses don't earn $1.4 million a year. i wish they did in our society. i wish we valued the teaching profession. there was a study recently that showed that a good kindergarten teacher is worth $365,000 a

year. unfortunately, madam speaker, i don't think there are any kindergarten teachers in our country that earn it. i'm grateful that of course the gentleman from california pointed o -- pointed out the gentleman's abuse of the public drop was exposed and corrected and the residents of that town will hopefully compensate their new city manager along the lines of the standards. i have limited time so i cannot yield. finally, he talked about republicans, independents, and democrats doing something and caring about teachers, caring about nurses. i have no doubt that in this chamber and in our country americans of all stripes and all parties care deeply about nurses and teachers and keeping our streets safe. and members on both parties here in the house today will have a chance to express that. a very tangible way by keeping teachers in classrooms, nurses in hospitals, and officers on the beat by voting yes on the rule of the motion here today.

with that, madam speaker, i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my esteemed colleagues on the rule committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. madam speaker, our communities are struggling. 47 states are facing budget shortfalls and at least 34 states will cut both jobs and services in this fiscal year unless there is an additional six-month extension of the fmap program. all of us are hearing from our governors. in june a bipartisan group of governors wrote to congress pleading for an extense of fmap money because they believe it is the most efficient way to avoid further layoffs and health care cuts that will slow the recovery. at a time when states like massachusetts are starting to see unemployment rates decrease, now is not the time to pull the rug from under them. if we were to fail our states and not enact this extension, 2,900 teaching and firefighter

jobs in massachusetts would be at risk. what would that mean for classroom size? cops on the street, and firefighter response? to put it mildly it wouldn't be good. this is exactly the type of nation building we should be focusing on here at home and i wish my friends on the other side of the aisle and the other chamber could realize that. it is important to note that this bill is not only essential it is paid for. in fact, a nonpartisan congressional budget office finds this bill will cut the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade. if only the bush tax cuts for the rich, the medicare drug benefit, or wars in iraq and afghanistan were paid for, we would not be facing the deficit issues we are today. so we don't need any lectures by republicans about deficits. they created this mess that we are in. and democrats once again have the responsibility of cleaning it up. they should be ashamed of what they did to this economy. madam speaker, i would be remiss if i didn't express my deep concern with one of the

outsets of this bill, specifically i think it's plain awful the senate has sent us a bill that cuts future funding for the snap program, formererly known as food stamps. the american recovery and reinvestment act rightfully included significant funding for snap. snap is the most effective stimulus available today and we rightfully included funding for increased snap benefits in the recovery act. yet the senate has included a cut in these snap benefits that will result in $59 less per month for a family of four starting in 2014. the choice then is to provide critical aid to the states to protect jobs for teachers, firefighters, and police officers today or protect future benefits for those hungry americans who struggle to put food on their tables. it is not a choice that we should be forced to make. it frustrates me to no end and quite frankly i'm outraged this is one of the offsets. i would ask my friends in the senate why do the most vulnerable in our country always have to pay more than

their fair share? this practice of robbing peter to pay paul must come to an end. yet here we are. madam speaker, i will support this bill because it will help the people of massachusetts and the people in this country. this bill will do good things and do them immediately. but i'm casting this vote because we have time to fix the snap issue in the future. i continue to believe that we can properly fund the snap program as well as other domestic anti-hunger programs and assure that no person in america goes hungry. and by not dealing with the issue of hunger more aggressively, we are not saving money, madam speaker. we are costing the country much more in terms of everything from increased health care costs to loss productivity. i believe that in the richest, most powerful nation in the world people shouldn't go hungry. millions of our fellow citizens sadly don't have enough to eat and that, quite frankly, is a national disgrace. let's approve this bill. let's help keep teachers in the classrooms, cops on the streets, and more firefighters in our cities and towns. then when we come back after

recess, let's do what's right and restore the snap cuts. let's find another offset that doesn't make a bad situation worse. for america's hungry and food insecure, let's for once make them a priority. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i yield myself 15 seconds to say i appreciate the fact my friend from colorado pointed out contrary to what speaker pelosi said when she argued that republicans would rather see in the unemployment line teachers, nurses, and cops rather than the classroom, emergency room, and on the beat that in fact we do, republicans and democrats alike, care. at this point i'm happy to yield, madam speaker, two minutes to a very hardworking member of the financial services committee, my friend from dallas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, we are here today because the speaker of the house has declared us an emergency session. .

there is a national emergency. apparently congress has not spent enough money. notwithstanding the fact that we passed the $1.2 trillion stimulus bill, the $410 billion 2009 omnibus bill, the house passed the $871 billion cap and trade bill, the $2.6 trillion government takeover of health care bill and the 2010 omnibus bill weighing in at $445 billion. but there's a national emergency. we're not spending enough money. let's spend $26.1 billion more. madam speaker, the american people are asking, what part of broke doesn't this congress understand? we are already looking at our second year of trillion-dollar deficits. the largest debt in the history of our nation, as our percentage of our economy,

largest since world war ii. what part of broke doesn't congress understand? now, many of us have lost track here, madam speaker. i don't know if this is stimulus bill part three or bailout bill part four. there's been so many of them it's simply hard to keep track of. what have all the stimulus bills brought us? well, an additional loss of three million jobs, private sector jobs lost since we passed this stimulus bill. yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle call it a success. madam speaker, let's hope that this stimulus bill is not near as successful as the previous one. and here we have yet another bailout bill. we bailed out chrysler, g.m., fannie, freddie, the major banks. people have bought too much home and couldn't afford it and now we are going to bail out the states. so if california and new york can't live within their means taxpayers in kansas, minnesota and kentucky are to bail them

out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hensarling: it's time to reject the rule and the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to my colleague on the rules committee, the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my colleague for yielding. i rise today in support of the underlying rule and to the bill itself. madam speaker, the vote we will take today is a vote for preserving jobs in america and a vote against sending them overseas. it will be a vote of keeping jobs in our country by saving the jobs of over 140,000 teachers. 700 of them in my home state of maine. allowing for further cuts in teachers' jobs would be devastating, not only to our children but also to our local economies in maine and across the country. the loss of 700 jobs in my state means 700 fewer paychecks being spent at a local grocery

or hardware store on the goods and services that support our local economy. local property taxpayers are already carrying too much of the burden, and local school districts have already made too many drastic cuts. taxpayers need some relief and schools need a helping hand. madam speaker, this bill is also fully paid for. in part by cracking down on corporations that have been claiming a tax credit for sending good-paying american jobs overseas. large multinational corporations have been getting away with paying billions less than they owe in taxes. this bill will close the loophole in allowing this to go on. it's outrageous that these companies have been getting a tax credit while companies doing business in america are struggling to hire and retain workers. it is time to put an end to this practice immediately. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to simply say we keep hearing that this is fully paid for. it's paid for, madam speaker, by taxing companies that in difficult times are creating jobs and by hitting food stamps and renewable energy. obviously that ain't a way to pay for this, and we know that it's not fully paid for. with that, madam speaker -- with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to a tireless member of the house rules committee, my friend from dallas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker, and i appreciate the gentleman, mr. dreier, for yielding me this time. madam speaker, last night at the rules committee we had a very vigorous and spirited debate. it's continuing, although less federal reservency on the house floor, about the in-- fervency on the house floor, about blame george bush for all the problems when in fact it's been 15 straight months of unemployment over 9.5% that the

democratic party is personally responsible for. the substance of this bill is not just about teachers. we already know it's about a lot of other issues. and one of them is about the competitiveness of america as we do business overseas. the u.s. chamber says about this bill, "it would impose draconian tax increases on american worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of american business and deter economic growth." madam speaker, the democratic party is hung up on this issue, and, yet, they will blame george bush for the bad legislation that they pass. the facts of the case are simple. americans invest in the stock market, american companies need to see markets all around the world, and this bill will make it far, far more difficult for

american companies to invest in their operations that make money. making money is what keeps the stock market, 401-k's and lots of retirement plans up so they're able to receive the funds as a benefit of a worldwide economic opportunity. madam speaker, the democratic party is once again going to go and harm not just the stock market but employment and our ability to make a comeback. national association of manufacturers says imposing $9.6 billion tax increase on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of american manufacturing employees. it is americans who work here who produce goods and services that are sold overseas. and what we want to do is to take away the ability that companies have to sell overseas. that is the legacy of this

democratic party, higher taxes, more rules and regulations, and debt and record unemployment. this is not how you impose -- give opportunities to people to build jobs. it is a job destruction, and that's what the democratic party is known for. this comes in line with the three largest political items of this democrat majority that net lose america 10 million american jobs. don't blame somebody else, madam speaker. please stand up and admit you've been in office now, not just ms. pelosi, for almost four years, but the president now for a year and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: pin the tail on the donkey. the speaker pro tempore: members will heed the gavel. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: i ask a simple question, what about our children? this legislation, which i fully support and the rule, would ensure that the millions of children who are returning to school this fall have the same opportunity to learn and to thrive as their peers did before them. it will also keep first responders on duty and fund vital medicaid services. economists have concluded that failure to pass this legislation will put a significant weight on our fragile economy. nonetheless, my republican friends continue to paint this legislation as an election-season gimmick. this legislation will save more than 130,000 teacher jobs and reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. that's not a gimmick. ensuring education of our children and the safety of our communities is not a gimmick. the greatest failure -- the greatest threat to our national and economic security is the failure to properly educate every single one of our

children. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield three minutes to my very good friend who is the ranking member of the education and labor committee, the gentleman from lakeville, minnesota, mr. kline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. kline: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying measure. madam speaker, 18 months ago we gathered in this chamber to debate economic stimulus. republicans wanted to help job creators, but the majority said no, let's borrow and spend. and borrow and spend they did to the tune of $862 billion. back then the democrats sent nearly $100 billion to states and districts to prop up school budgets. it would save 300,000 jobs, we were told, and improve public education. it was a one-time investment, we were told. they would not be back for more. yet here we stand and they're

back for more. i know my schools, i know their challenges and i understand the difficult budget decisions our governors, superintendents and school boards are being forced to make. and i know a federal bailout is not the answer. spending another $10 billion we do not have will not improve public education or protect the very best teachers. early this year education secretary arnie duncan told us, quote, today the status quo clearly isn't good enough, closed quote, yet, this is exactly what this $10 billion will per pet wait. -- perpetuate. this will ignore student achievement when deciding which teachers to keep in the classroom. these -- this is nothing more than across-the-board inflation of state spending. spending another $10 billion we do not have will not balance state budgets or bolster our economy. because of major increases in the number of school personnel

in recent years, states are operating education budgets they cannot afford. at best inflating state education spending for another year will kick the can down the road. merely postponing the tough decisions and allowing states to overextend themselves for another year. at worst, another bailout will make states more dependent on the federal government and more susceptible to washington's political whims. finally, spending another $10 billion we do not have is not good for our children and grandchildren. this bill is not paid for. we're looking at a washington shell game of deficit spending gamesmanship. we cannot pay for more stimulus spending today. i oppose this legislation. i encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and against the underlying legislation. i give this whole effort an f, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, as has been noted, this

legislation will reduce the federal deficit by over $1 billion, and with that i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, a member of the appropriations committee, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: madam speaker, let me be clear, i strongly support the $16 billion of critical funding that this legislation provides for medicaid assistance and the $10 billion in education funding for teachers. i will support it today as i have several times in the past when this passage has come to the floor of this house. yet, i rise in support of this bill with a heavy heart, not because of what it provides but because of what it takes away. i know as many of my colleagues do regardless of party that without these resources many states, including my state of connecticut, will have to make draconian cuts to essential services that they cannot afford to make without tearing apart the basic fabric of their communities. that is why this bill is so critical. nothing could be more important

than the education of our children and the access to health care services that families depend on, especially in this tough economy. and finally, this bill ends tax breaks for exporting american jobs. however, i cannot in good conscience condone the way we have paid for this package. what we have taken away in the process. at a time when we have seen the demand for food assistance skyrocket from 31 million people receiving food stamps in november, 2008, to almost 41 million people now, we have chosen to pilfer $12 billion from the food stamp program in the name of fiscal responsibility. . we have chosen to be fiscally responsible on the backs of those needy families who need our help to feed themselves and their children. when so many families are struggling with unemployment, lower wages, lost benefits, less incomes, cutting food assistance is unconscionable.

the fact is education, health care, and food these are things that bind us as a society. play formative roles in determining the course of this country. yet the bill before us today shamefully pits these priorities against each other. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to a member who would like to see us go through the regular appropriations process, a member of the appropriations committee, my friend from savannah, georgia, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: thank you, madam speaker. who knew? who knew the states were running out of money? who knew when we were bailing out general motors, the big banks, fannie mae and freddie mac? apparently the speaker of the house had no idea there were some problems in the hinterland. so here we are back in washington, millions of dollars spent to bring everybody back. this is governing by reaction.

pannedering to -- pandering to the political base. taking care of the excesses of governing bodies who are unable or unwilling to make the tough decisions the smaller states, small businesses, and american families are have to make every day. we hear over and over again this is paid for. i got news for you, if you have a huge debt on your american express card and transfer it to your visa card, you haven't paid for anything. 41 cents on the dollar that we spend is borrowed money. the food stamps program which the democrats are cutting, the renewable energy program which the democrats are cutting, and you can even argue the job-killing tax increases they are about to pass, that's all on borrowed money. 41 cents on the dollar is borrowed in our country today under the democrat leadership. now, we could be up here

looking at medicare and social security. the trustees report just came back and said they are both going broke. i would think that's what be worth coming back to washington for any time. we should fight to fix social security and medicare. but instead it's another bailout and another promise of governmental utopia. if we just bail out this one class group, jobs will return. the deficit will be balanced. and there will be peace from sea to shining sea. it's just not going to work. this is a bailout congress. it's government by bailout. it's government by borrowed money. and our children's children will be paying for this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself 30 seconds. madam speaker, when we are talking about cops and firefighters and teachers, we have and we need and we value cops and firefighters and teachers, and the redest of red

states and bluest of blue states across this great country. that's why, madam speaker, 16 republican governors have written to us and urged us to pass the money today including i might add the governor of the state of georgia as well as the governor of the state of alabama. calling on us to act because all of us know we are in this together as a country regardless of where we live. we all need these basic services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. poll cloins i would like to -- mr. polis: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized texas. mr. doggett: listening to the concerns of parents, the hopes of students, and leaders, today we are responding with essential federal aid to education, fully paid for by closing international corporate tax loopholes that should never have been there in the first place. because we believe in local control of education, we require that the state of texas specifically forward the new

federal aid to our local school districts not divert it or spend it on something else. the association of school boards, teachers, principals, and school administrators support this legislation and this approach. now those who have never wanted tacks or any other place in this country to receive a dime of additional federal aid to education, they complain in a because we are holding -- that we are holding -- they complain that because we are holding the texas -- instead of concocting phony legalistic arguments, governor perry and his cohorts here in congress ought to be joining us in supporting quality public education. you can be sure that texas is singled out by this legislation. it was singled out by a

governor who grabbed $3.2 billion of federal aid to education to bail out a mismanaged state government. that's the bailout that occurred. it occurred last year in the state of texas. we didn't send that federal aid to -- for education to texas to plug a mismanaged state budget. we sent it to help our school children. and so today in order to avoid history repeating itself, we demand exhibit gibblet. we demand support for quality public education and local control of education and not more mismanaged and interference from the state of texas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. inslee: permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. inslee: madam speaker, the students now are at the beach, swimming holes, they are not thinking about their education.

but we are. and we are seeing good things. we have almost 3,000 teachers laid off if we don't pass this bill in the state of washington. that is just flat wrong. now, what is the debate here? the debate is that one side of the aisle believes it is more important to preserve billions of dollars of tax loopholes so that corporations can hide their money in the bahamas and other places. they think those billions of dollars for those corporate loopholes is simply more important and almost 3,000 teachers and classrooms in the state of washington. we disagree. the kids aren't thinking about it, but we are. and let's be clear what the decision is today. one side of the aisle is going to be giving billions of dollars for corporate loopholes, and one side of the aisle is going to be taking care of kids. they don't want to give a dime

to kids but billions for corporate loopholes. pass the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i'm going to continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would like to yield minute to my colleague, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. as somebody who spent 14 years in local government before coming here to the united states congress, i know how essential it is that our state and local governments get some relief. the cumulative deficit that are expressed over the next two years is $350 billion which will have a profound effect on our economy. this bill which is fully paid for and actually reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years is essential to making sure state and local workers stay serving the public they serve. and i think that the time has come to provide that assistance and i look forward to supporting h.r. 1586 as a proud

former local official. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i'll continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i would like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. never mind. madam speaker, i yield myself one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i'm particularly pleased that this legislation does not include $800 million in cuts to critical education reform programs. including race to the top which has encouraged education reform initiatives and accountability across our country, including the charter school innovation fund which provide start-up money for new innovative charter schools to help meet the educational needs of our most at-risk youth and the teacher incentive fund.

finding new and better ways to compensate teachers for their hard work. this bill before us today, madam speaker, recognizes that we need both funding and reform. investment and accountability. one without the other will not close the achievement gap. together, madam speaker, teachers in the classroom and the education reform initiatives that president obama is pursuing in a bipartisan way promise to help end the vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance in this country and replace it with a virtuous cycle of opportunity. with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much, madam speaker. thank you for the minute of time. it's amazing that we are even spending one second debating this bill. the american people all across this country from the width and

breadth of it are hurting. and the number one reason they are hurting is because of a lack of jobs. and here we have a bill that means 319,000 jobs to the american people. we ought not waste not one additional minute debating this bill but to go ahead and to pass this bill. 319,000 jobs. and jobs in the critical areas of teachers, of firefighters, of police officers. the very jobs that are at the core of educating our young people without this bill passing. 161,000 teachers will no longer exist. without this bill passing 90-some thousand first responders -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado wish to yield additional time? the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields. mr. dreier: madam speaker, may i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining? mr. polis: we have one remaining speaker. mr. dreier: then the gentleman's close? madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: madam speaker, it's my honor to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i know that as my colleagues listen to debate on thehe floor of the house, th don't have the full picture of members returning from work recess where we have been meeting with constituents. to come here today to take this important step. we are the people's house and

it certainly gives us no trouble to fly in to be able to make this important decision. but this is out of the ordinary. and it's out of the ordinary because you are looking at people who really care about what is happening, the strangulation of our states, and the losses and pink slips the teachers are getting so that our children cannot learn and be parts of the competitive edge in the world. i know it factually having more than seven school districts in my community. today we are doing something that chairman obey deserves credit on his vision and his tenacity. someone who knows what it is to be without. today we are talking about helping people, and i'm sorry the other body took so long and i'm sorry they took it out of eitc. i'm sorry they did not handle this in the right way. but we have a crisis going on. and so these thousands of

dollars that will help to save these teachers and firefighters and police officers so that maybe those three little girls that were killed by a drunk driver in my district would not have face the such with more law enforcement to tell people, you can't drive while you're drunk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. polis: additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i rise today to support this and ask anybody with good judgment why would you vote against it? as i said i don't like the pay-fors but it is paid for. we'll fix that. but let me tell you what's happening in texas. texas is taking money out of the mouths of children and putting it somewhere else. so i'm supporting it because we have language that says to the governor of the state of texas don't fool for money for children and education. we have 40 school districts saying we support the legislative language that members of the texas delegation have proposed that would guarantee -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

mr. polis: additional 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: that would guarantee these emergency federal education funds are actually spent on education in texas as drafted this texas has no impact on anything else. i'm standing here because it's about education and public safety. i believe we are doing the right thing. i ask my colleagues to vote on the underlying bill and the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. . mr. dreier: does my friend have more speakers? mr. polis: we have no more speakers on our side. mr. dreier: then i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, a week ago last friday when they adjourned for the august district work period, i thought to myself, well, we're going to get a six-week reprieve from this pattern of constant increases in spending and more bailouts, and yet here we are

one week into this august district work period and we're back here with a $26.1 billion spending measure. now, madam speaker, i was horrified when i read at the end of last week a quote that was put out of speaker pelosi's office. she said that republican members would rather see teachers, nurses and cops on the unemployment line rather than having teachers in the classrooms, nurses in the emergency rooms and cops on the beat. and as i said in the opening, i'm grateful that my friend from colorado recognizes that democrats, republicans, independents alike all want to make sure that teachers are in the classroom, all want to make sure that nurses are in the emergency room and all want to make sure that cops are on the beat. so let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that somehow if you're not supportive of this

$26.1 billion measure that you're somehow opposed to teachers, nurses and cops. why is it that we're here just one week into this break? we're here because of abject failure. now, madam speaker, for the first time since the 1974 budget act was put into place, we have not had the house of representatives pass a budget. never before has it been done like this. never been. -- never before. we have the chairman of the house appropriations committee. we are only 1/6 of our way through the appropriations process, and we have done it limiting the opportunity for democrats and republicans to represent their constituents with amendments here on the house floor. so what is it that's happened? no budget. well, why is it so important to have a budget? the reason to have a budget is so that we can ensure that teachers are in the classrooms,

that nurses are in the emergency rooms, and that cops are on the beat. we have to establish priorities. and under speaker pelosi's leadership, that has not happened. and so we have rushed back here to washington for one day to debate and pass, i presume they're going to have the votes to pass it, a $26 kp 1 billion measure. they continue -- $26.1 billion measure. they continue to say that it's paid for, it's paid for. my friend from houston says she will -- does not like the way it's paid for and will fix it later. how do they pay for it? they pay for it on the backs of those businesses that are today working very hard in difficult economic times to create jobs. they fix it by -- they pay for it on the backs of the poor with the food stamp program, and while we're all focused on

improving our environment, they fix it on the backs -- they pay for it on the backs of those of us that want to continue to focus on improving our environment. meaning that it's nothing more than smoke and mirrors to claim that this is somehow paid for. the american people are hurting. my friend from atlanta just pointed out that fact, and he's absolutely right. madam speaker, it is critical that we focus on job creation and economic growth, and we know how that can be done. over the last 18 months we've seen an 84% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, an 84% increase in the last 18 months. and we have an unemployment rate that is 9.5%, fully 1 1/2 percentage points beyond what president obama promised it would be if we passed his $800

billion stimulus bill. and so i think that across the board we can recognize that the economic policies of tax and spend have not worked in turning the economy around since we still have a 9.5% unemployment rate. my state of california has a 12.3% unemployment rate. and whatary doing is continuing down this program -- and what we're doing is continuing down this program of massive, massive spending. what should we be doing? i think we should be taking, yes, a bipartisan approach. i like to regularly hold up that john f. kennedy model for job creation and economic growth. we all know that in the early 1960's john f. kennedy stepped up to the plate and put into place marginal across-the-board rate reduction. and what did that bring, madam speaker? it brought during the decade of the 1960's a 60% increase in

the flow of revenues to the u.s. treasury, meaning that priorities could be established and that there was actually enhanced economic growth generating more revenues to the federal treasury. similarly, during the 1980's ronald reagan inherited a slow-moving economy. and what did he do? president reagan put into place marginal across-the-board rate reduction, and it brought a 90% increase, nearly doubling the flow of revenues to the federal treasury. and so that's why this notion of dramatically increasing spending and at the same time i creasing the tax burden on job -- increasing the tax burden on job creators is a prescription for failure. and that's exactly what we have found so far. we want to put into place positive pro-growth economic policies. and we believe that while we are in the midst of this august district work period we should

now, because the american people want us very much to get the economy move, we should be working here on -- in the house passing those. so, madam speaker, i am going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and voting no on the previous question, if we're successful at defeating it, we will -- i will offer an amendment that will prevent the house from leaving immediately -- and i know everybody wants to do that -- but if we can put into place pro-growth policies, i think it will be certainly well worth our staying. so if we defeat the previous question, my amendment will allow for the consideration of five measures. first, h.r. 4746, to prevent pending tax increases. second, h.r. 3765, the regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act. h.r. 5141, the small business paperwork mandate elimination act.

h.r. 4110, the tarp sunset act of 2009. and h.r. 2842, rescinding all stimulus funds that remain unobligated. now, madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question and allow those five measures to be debated on the house floor, i believe that goal would go a long way towards getting our economy back on track and, yes, that kind of economic growth would ensure that we would have the resources to make sure that teachers remain in the classrooms and that nurses remain in the emergency rooms and that cops remain on the beat. and so, madam speaker, i urge a no vote on the previous question, and if by chance we are not successful, i urge a no vote on the rule because i believe we can do better. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of the rule and the senate amendment to h.r. 1586. the new school year is just around the corner. families across our nation are preparing to send their kids back to school, and the experience that their children have this school year directly depends, madam speaker, on our actions here today in this chamber. the package before us today recognizes that we can't afford to stand idle while our schools are being hammered by budget crisisees across the country. in -- crisises across the country. in colorado, colorado school districts have cut more than $288 million out of their budgets for next school year. so the $160 million that colorado will receive under this program provides much-needed funds. and i want to describe that that's typical that many face. in no way, shape or form are we avoiding to making the tough cuts during this recession. the states have made those, the

districts have made those. we have the opportunity to make sure that those cuts don't affect the kids going back to school. what have district done to balance their budget? they've reduced their staff size and salaries, they've decreased furlough days, they've reduced instructional hours, cut after-school programs, established four-day school weeks. we're undercutting the future of american competitiveness by getting in the way of the ability to educate kids today because we happen to be in a severe budget crisis. we each here today in this chamber, madam speaker, have the opportunity to get these much-needed funds to states and school districts across the country. in addition, the budget of colorado and more than half the states in the country assume that the f-mat increases will occur. if they don't, if this chameder doesn't act today, colorado will have to come up with $245

million more in cuts, and in most states, including my home state, those cuts will generally hit education, law enforcement, higher education. so the extension is critically important, not only for the low-income families that rely on medicaid for health services, but also for all public services that are so essential for our communities. undermining public education during a recession is no way to build a world-class educational system, no way to create the economic engine of growth for our nation for the next century when more than ever jobs will depend on what people know and their ability to think rather than what they can do with their hands. by passing this here today, madam speaker, we can help ensure america's competitiveness in the global, knowledge-based economy. inaction today in the face of today's crisis would simply mean further erosion of our

nation's human capital, our greatest asset. madam speaker, this is not spending we are considering today. this is an investment. it's an investment in our most valuable asset, our children and our future. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and the rule. i yield back the balance of my time, and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. dreier: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: on that i ask for 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 and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the 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, madam speaker. i rise today to rise a question of the privilege resolution of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: whereas the 111th congress has failed in its promise to be the most open congress in history, but has instead lost the publics trust by engaging in unprecedented political procedures to advance a partisan agenda. whereas on january 18, 2006, house minority leader nancy pelosi stated in prepared remarks, democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt congress in history into the most open and honest congress in history. whereas on november 7, 2006, house minority leader nancy pelosi stated, "the american people voted to restore integrity and honesty in washington, d.c., and the democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical congress in history." whereas on november 16, 2006, incoming house speaker nancy pelosi stated, "this leadership team will create

the most honest, most open, and most ethical congress in history." whereas on december 6, 2006, incoming house speaker nancy pelosi stated, "we promised the american people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will." whereas incoming majority whip clyburn stated on december 8, 2006 that, "democrats will exercise better leadership in the new congress and work to raise the standard of ethics in this body." whereas speaker pelosi spoke of individual members ethics on january 31, 2007, when she stated, "these strong ethics rules are significant steps toward honest leadership, enforcing these rules is critical to ensuring every member of congress lives up to the highest ethical standard." whereas on january 5, 2010, while at a press conference during the health care debate, speaker pelosi stated, "there has never been a more open process for any legislation." whereas this statement was reiterated by the speaker

while at a press conference on february 26, 2010, when a reporter prefaced a question about rangel by noting that speaker pelosi had promised to run the most ethical and honest congress in history, she interrupted him to say and we are. whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64 total, in the 110th congress under democrat control, than in the previous congress, 49, under republican control. whereas fewer bills were considered under open rules, 10 total, in the 110th congress under democrat control, than in the previous congress, 22, under republican control. . whereas zero bills have been considered so far in the 111th congress under an open rule. whereas 26 bills have been considered so far in the 111th congress under a closed rule, under democrat control. whereas this congress is the high spending congress in the united states history.

whereas this congress has presided over the two highest budget deficits in the united states history at a time when public debt is higher than at any other time in history. whereas this congress began its mortgage of the nation's future with a stimulus package costing $1.1 trillion that failed to lower unemployment, spur economic growth, or actually address the needs of struggling american bills and families. whereas this congress continued its free flowing spending with an increase of 7 $72.4 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2009 to reach a total spending level of $1.01 trillion for the first time in the united states history. whereas this congress approved a budget resolution in 2009 that proposed the sixth largest nomal deficits in american history and included tax increases of $423 billion during a period of sustained high unemployment.

whereas this congress disregarded the needs and opinions of everyday americans by passing a national energy tax bill that would increase costs on nearly every aspect of american lives by up to $3,000 per year, eliminate millions of jobs, reduce workers' income, and devastate economic growth. whereas this congress disregarded the needs and opinions of everyday americans by passing a massive government takeover of health care that will force millions of americans from their health insurance plans, increase premiums, and costs for individuals and employers, raise taxes by $569.2 billion, and fund abortions at a cost of $2.64 trillion over the first 10 years of full implementation. whereas this congress nationalized the student loan industry with the potential cost of 30,000 private sector jobs and $50.1 billion over 10 years. whereas this congress passed the disclose act in violation

of the first amendment and during citizens associations and corporations free speech while leaving all unions exempt from many of the new requirements in order to try and influence the outcome of 2010 elections. whereas in spite of house budget committee chairman's 2006 statement that if you can't budget, you can't govern, the democratic leadership has failed to introduce a budget resolution in 2010 as mandated by law, but instead self-execute add deeming resolution that increases nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2011 by $30 billion to $1.121 trillion. setting another new record for the highest level in the united states history. whereas this congress has failed main street through passage of a financial system takeover that fails to end the moral hazard of too big to fail does not address the fannie mae and freddie mac behemoths and creates numerous new boards,

councils, and positions with unconstitutionally broad authorities that will interfere with the creation of wealth and jobs. whereas this congress has wasted taxpayer funds on an unnecessary and unconstitutional auto industry bailout, a cash for clunkers program, a home loan modification program, and countless other pork barrel projects while allowing the public debt to reach its highest level in united states history. whereas democrats have recently insinuated that significant legislative matters would deliberately not be addressed during the 111th congress until after the midterm elections in november 2010. whereas "the new york times" reported on june 19, 2010 that for all the focus on the historic federal rescue of the banking industry, it is the government's decision to seize fannie mae and freddie mac in september of 2008 that is likely to cost taxpayers the

most money. republicans want to sever ties with fannie and freddie once the crisis abates. the obama administration and congressional democrats have insisted on postponing the argument until after the midterm elections. whereas the "washington times" reported on june 22, 2010 that the house majority leader, steny hoyer, stated a budget which sets out binding one-year targets and a multiyear plan is useless this year because congress has shunted key questions about deficits to the independent debt commission created by president obama which is due to report back at the end of this year. whereas the hill reported on june 24, 2010 that senator tom harkin, a democrat from iowa, suggested that democrats might attempt to move legislation this year, perhaps during a lame duck session. a lot of things can happen in a lame duck session, too, he said in reference to efca.

whereas "the new york times" published an article on june 28, 2010 titled, lame duck session emerges as possibility for climate bill conference that declares many expect the final energy or climate bill to be worked out during the lame duck session between the november election and the start of the new congress in january. whereas the hill reported on jewel 1, 2010, that democratic leaders are likely to punt the test of raising bush era tax cuts until after the election of the voters in november's mid terms will best be left without a clear idea of their future tax rates when they go to the polls. whereas the "wall street journal" reported on july 13, 2010, that there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning on an ambitious lame duck session to muscle through bills. in december they don't want to defend before november. retiring or defeated members of

congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation. whereas the hill reported on july 27, 2010, that senate majority leader harry reid said at the recent nation conference of liberal blog -- bloggers, in reference to unfinished priorities, we are going to have to have a lame duck session so we are not giving up. the hill reported in the same piece on july 27, 2010, that the lame duck session will include priorities such as comprehensive immigration reform, climate change legislation, and a whole host of other issues. whereas the declaration of independence notes that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. whereas the american people have expressed their loss of confidence, their self-organized and self-funded taxpayer marches on washington and countless tea party events, town halls, and speeches and with numerous letters, emails,

and phone calls to their elected representatives. whereas a reconvening of congress between the regularly scheduled federal election in november and the start of the next session of congress is known as a lame duck session of congress. whereas the democrat majority has all but announced plans to use any lame duck congress to advance currently unattainable partisan policies that are widely unpopular with the american people or that further increase the national debt against the will of most americans. whereas any such action would be a repudiation of the american people's expressed will and would not comport with the democrats' public statements promising transparency and accountability. and whereas under the leadership of speaker pelosi and the democrat majority and largely due to the current trends of government expansion and freedom retrenchment, the american people have lost confidence with their elected officials and that they must be restored. now therefore be it resolved

that the house of representatives, one, reaffirms the principle expressed in the declaration of independence that governments derived through just powers from the consent of the governed. two, recognizing the fundamental importance of trust existing between the american people and their elected officials. three, confirms that adhering to the will of the people is imperative to upholding public trust. four, states that the american people deserve to know where their current elected officials stand on key legislative issues before election day. five, states that delay controversial, unpopular votes until after the election gives impressions to voters and deliberately hides the true intentions of the majority while denying voters the ability to make fully informed choices on election day. and six, pledges not to assemble on or between the dates of november 2, 2010 and january 3, 2011 except in the

case of an unforeseen sudden emergency requiring immediate action from congress. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from georgia wish to present his argument on why the resolution is privileged under rule 9 take precedence over other questions? mr. price: i do, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. price: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i hold in my hand here the house rules and manual which include the rules of the house of representatives. under rule 9 it states in part, that questions of privilege shall be those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of members. clearly, madam speaker, the reputation and conduct of members is in question and highlighted in this resolution. what could be more questionable regarding conduct of members than acting in a disingenuous manner by saying that a lame duck session will not include controversial items and then planning to do just that? madam speaker, the intent of the majority is clear. they wish to spend more, they

wish to tax more, they wish to borrow more, and they wish to harm job creation in a lame duck session and the american people don't want this. to positively and responsibly represent our constituents, madam speaker, i respectfully request that the resolution be considered. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard? hearing none, the chair is prepared to rule. the resolution offered by the gentleman from georgia declares a variety of facts and circumstances, expresses certain opinions, provides principles by which to schedule or conduct the constitutional session of the house. and proposes a special order of business with respect thereto. in evaluating the resolution, under the standards of rule 9, the chair must be mindful of a fundamental principle illuminated by annotations of precedent in section 706 of the house rules and manual to wit, that a question of privileges of house may be not invoked to

effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the house or their interpretation. more to president reagan describe a special order of business for the house. this resolution presents a question of the privileges of the house under rule 9 embodies precisely the contrary principle. under which each individual member of the house would constitute a virtual rules committee able to place before the house at any time whatever proposed order of business he or she might deem advisable simply by ledging an insult to dignity or integrity secondary to some action or inaction. in such an environment anything could be privileged. so nothing would enjoy true privilege. with every question having precedent over every other question, the legislative session, attention of the house would be managed ad hoc by the presiding officers' discretionary power of recognition. accordingly, under the long and

well settled line of precedent presently culminating in several rulings during the first session of this 111th congress, the chair finds that such a resolution does not affect, quote, the rights of the house collectively, its safety, dignity, or the integrity of the proceedings. close quote. within the meaning of clause 1 of rule 9 and therefore does not qualify as a question of the privileges of the house. the chair therefore holds that the resolution is not privileged for consideration ahead of other business. instead, the resolution may be submitted through the hopper for possible consideration in regular court. mr. price: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? 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? for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: madam speaker, i move that the appeal be laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the question sont motion to table. those in favor please say aye. those opposed please say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. price: on that i request 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, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by five-minute votes on ordering the previous question on house resolution 1606, and adoption of the house resolution 1606, if ordered. 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: the nays are 163. without objection, the motion to reconsider is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. members will please take their seats. members will please take their seats and remove their conversations from the aisle. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i rise on a very solemn and sad moment to express the condolences to families and victims within my congressional district and the state of connecticut. mr. larsen: i have --

mr. larson: i have always empa thiesed with my fellow colleagues when they talk about faithful events that occur in their communities, i just never imagined the tragedy would strike so close to home. it's hard to conceive, i know for everyone here, the bad things that happen to good people. on the morning of august 3, 2010, eight men went to work. some looking forward to vacation. others nearing retirement. none expecting the calamity that would follow. i thank my colleagues for indulging me the time to express the heartfelt condolences of the nation and this body. eight men went to work that morning. some of them followed in the footsteps of their fathers and brothers before them. this is a family business. many of whom had served and worked at this family business for over 20 years.

neither they nor their families and friends could anticipate the senseless, unthinkable actions that occurred on that morning. yet bad things happen to good people. and so consequently ordinary people are going through extraordinary circumstances. punctuated by acts of heroism, courage, and camaraderie that uenilingts them. -- unites them. these eight men, bill ackerman, brian of newington, francis of bristol, lewis of stanford, viktor of windsor, edwin of east harper, and craig of south windsor lost their lives that

day. they were teamsters of local 1035, but beyond that they were husbands, fathers, grandfathers, coaches, and friends. they were leaders and stalwarts in their communities where they lived and served. all were part of a family business which makes this so tragic. a family that's operated a business since 1955. the owner of that business i was with that fateful morning. stunned and shocked as everyone was. his thoughts were only about the safety and well-being of his work force, his concern as to whether or not they would be able to keep their wages. he talked to the comptroller making sure that benefits would be extended and his heart went out to all of the families who

were victims of this senseless tragic slaying. it's a family business. it was a tragic and horrific thing that took place in manchester, connecticut. but the people of the distributeor is they went through this and the several vigils and memorials that have been created and funeral services still going on, they understand that they have one another. and they intend later this week to lock arms and march back into the warehouse together and continue to move forward. always remembering those eight men. i ask that the members rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of these eight men and

their families during this senseless tragedy. the speaker pro tempore: the house will rise for a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the house will be in order. members will take their seats. the house will be in order. members will please clear the aisles. the chair is aware of a valid basis for the gentleman's point

of personal privilege. the gentleman from new york is recognized for one hour. mr. rangel: thank you, my dear friend, and colleagues. i rise to the floor in -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will please be in order. members will take their seats and remove their conversations from the aisles. the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: i rise to the floor because the newspapers and the media have indicated that there is a concern about some of the members in this house that are re-- i retire or remove myself from this body and i've always tried to play by the rules and i cannot think of anybody that has encouraged me to speak here . and i want to thank all of you who are concerned about me for

saying that, you know, a guy's a fool to represent himself as some of the people have said. but i have been losing a lot of sleep over these allegations and my family and community. some of these rules that they have is that i'm restricted by confidentiality, but for years i have been saying no comment, no comment, no comment to a lot of serious allegations because i could not comment and i would refer them to the ethics committee. and when the ethics committee finally brought out their statement of alleged violations, it was a long list of things, and somehow the chairman of the subcommittee of investigation indicated that i

had received a lot of offers to settle this thing so that it would not cause embarrassment to my democratic friends. and that i'd been offered a reprimand. and a lot of people kind of felt that sounded like a wonderful opportunity to remove this so that i could leave the congress with some degree of dignity. why, even some people said that the president had suggested that his life might be made easier if there was no charlie rangel, so-called, scandal. but i interpreted it another way. i think when the president said that he wanted me to end my career in dignity, he didn't put a time limit on it, and i would think that his concern would be that if any member of

the house of representatives has been accused of serious crimes or allegations that somehow within the process, even though -- there has to be some process in which the member has an opportunity to tell his constituents, his family and his friends what he didn't believe. so when the chairman of the investigating committee said i have been offered a settlement reminded me of something that i will devote my retiring years the science and education, which is the major thrust of my attempt here, is that those of you that come anywhere near criminal court, we have a terrible thing that happens throughout these united states and that is that someone gets arrested for a very serious crime and they get their lawyer and the lawyer explains that i

think it's better that you plead guilty to a lesser crime. he says, well, i'm not only not guilty but i don't even know what's involved here. they said, listen, we're not suggesting if you plea guilty if you're innocent, but i think you ought to know this judge if you're found guilty is going to send you away for 20 years. on the other hand you have no offenses, you're a first offender, and if you could just forget about this thing and explain later what happens. so he continues to tell the -- his lawyer that, hey, i'm willing to admit what i've done wrong and i've done some things wrong but i shouldn't have to -- anyway, he says, listen, we would never tell you to quit or resign. we are telling you that it would be easier for us that this is not an issue. but knowing the president, as i do, i think he believes dignity means that everybody is entitled to be judged for

allegations against them. we come back to this house because the speaker has called us here in order to make certain that we provide resources for governors and mayors to maintain our teachers and our firefighters, and rangel's not on the schedule for anything which is ok because i know that the members of the committee, they work hard, it's a selfless job. god knows i wouldn't take it. i respect the time that they placed on this. and it's been almost two years, but i have a primary that takes place a couple days before they even thought about meeting. and then i found out from my lawyer that even when they meet on the 13th of september there is no trial date then. and so i don't want to embarrass anybody. as a matter of fact, those people that believe that their election is going to be

dependent on me resigning, i like to encourage them to believe i think republicans have given you enough reason to get re-elected and they continue to do something. but quite frankly, i think -- a lot of people don't know but when the -- well, i don't want to be critical of the ethics committee because my lawyer said you can't make them -- you can't get annoyed with them because there still may be room for a settlement. and i thought about it. and, well, when i found out that one of the republicans that will be sitting on what they call the adjudication committee had made remarks condemning me for my contributions to the city college that it was a rangel thing, an ego thing, and a corrupt thing, and he was going to judge me, i asked my lawyer.

i said, how can they do that? he said, well, the ethics committee can do whatever they want. i said, well, do me a favor. i've paid close to $2 million. i continue to owe you money. and you're telling me that you have no idea when there's going to be a hearing. and every time i talk with you, i said, do me a favor on friday, let's see what happens today in terms of reaching out to settle this thing because i can't afford to be represented by counsel. each and every day the expenses build up, and i think that i have an obligation to younger members of congress to be able to tell them, if you couldn't raise the $2 million, you're out of business no matter what the allegations are. because no one's going to read the defense.

and, of course, just the allegations by themselves with -- by themselves would be out of business. i am here because i could afford lawyers for close to two years, but everyone would know that there comes a limit. so i told them, just put everything on hold. see what happens when we meet here. and guess what? nothing happened. there's no agenda. so what they're saying is that, while the ethics committee will be leaving to -- for members to be able to work in their districts and to get re-elected and i'm having a primary that i have to wait until after my primary to find out when the ethics committee intends to have a hearing. and then that hearing comes

just before, maybe, the general election. there must be something wrong with the rules because people would advise me that i could only hurt myself by coming before this committee. nobody has tried to protect the integrity of the congress with two years -- almost two years of investigation to say the mistakes that rangel has made should be public and should have been public earlier than now. and i couldn't say anything because i didn't want to offend and don't want to offend the ethics committee, but the ethics committee won't even tell me when i'm going to have a hearing. and, hey, people concerned about me, i'm 80 years old, i don't want to die before the hearing. and i think my electorate are entitled to finding out who their congressman for 40 years is. who am i? am i corrupt?

what did they offer me? and i want to be a role model for new members and tell them the mistakes i made so they don't make. and so there are a list of foundations that specialize in providing funds for education. so i'm convinced that the president wants some dignity in knowing that not only my -- am i one of his strongest supporters, but i know that you know that unless we able to provide education for every child that's there, almost by any means possible, that our nation's national security is being threatened by foreigners. that our ability to be ahead of the curve in terms of trade, and nobody is more supportive of the president in trade, clear up some of the things in the korean bill so you don't hurt us, clean up a little corruption and violence in colombia and move on with the thing. so the whole idea is really me

trying to have some dignity in making certain that america is stronger. now, the thing is that in the haste of sending out hundreds of letters, never asking for a penny but still suggesting we should meet with these people because i knew that i would hope that they would convince them to provide money. now, a lot of people have done that. doesn't mean it's right. but the rules have changed. and so there has to be a penalty for grabbing the wrong stationary and not really doing the right thing. but it's not corrupt. it may be stupid or neglect but -- neglect but it's not corrupt. -- neglijent but it's not corrupt. the benefit is that you have a legacy with your name up there. well, we should go to my website to take a look at my answers. this is a broken down building

that you have to run away from if someone's going to put your name on it. but it's still there. then they say that i would receive a luxurious offer. the sworn testimony was. they never told me. who in the heck needs an office with 40 years of service in the congress in a broken down building? and then they said, hey, we just put it in there so we encourage people to put it in there. they said the name. they thought was not a benefit to me, but a benefit in order for them to get money. so i can't imagine why in the cause of all of these things that government personnel didn't buy stamps -- well, if you think of them as official and you're wrong, then i violated the benefits. then at the end of the day the inferences are very serious and

mistakes can be made and they shouldn't have -- these things shouldn't have happened. but i can't walk away and have you guys doing your campaign because i'm annoyed and the action is out there calling me corrupt and no one is coming forward saying rangel is not corrupt, rangel didn't make a nickel. no witness ever said there was preferential treatment given. and one guy that had an issue before the senate, staff, republicans, everybody said it never came before the house but they keep putting it down there. and guess what? it was the district attorney of new york for over 40 years that suggested that i meet with him because he was in the education fill an tropic business in addition to having business in the senate which republicans and democrats say never came to the ways and means committee. and staff certainly can prove it. i don't know how far they'd go in making a mistake, but you