see a dramatic adverse impact on the national arts commun, specifically on arts education programs that are developing throughout community centers and in our schools. we do need to invest in the cultural lives of our citizenry and in our children's future. i can't help but fathom how a nation as rich and prosperous as ours could not find it in its heart to provide $167 million for the endowment for the arts. . the arts and humanities will survive but will not be accessible for the large majority of our citizens who otherwise couldn't afford the expensive tickets that too often are charged at those performing arts places where, frankly, the financially elite are only able to afford to go.

what the n.e.a. does is to expand artistic achievement to give people an opportunity to fully appreciate and for us to appreciate that talent. denise graves who grew up in washington said that the kennedy center could have been a world away. she never would have seen it had not it been for national endowment for the arts grant. that enabled her to then pursue a career that ultimately resulted in one of the finest opera performer in the world. the chair of the national endowment for the arts, a broadway producer, extraordinarily effective, active leader, he has suggested reform that we probably have too many arts venues.

let's consolidate them. let's make sure all of them are of the highest quality. this is a discussion that needs to be done. but what shouldn't be done is to cut the national endowment for the arts even further than this continuing resolution does. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. first of all, i have been on the committee for a long time, the interior appropriations committee. and i can remember when sidiates from chicago was the -- sid yates was the chairman and we had arts funding at $180 million . and we had the new republican leadership come in in 1994 and

1995, they cut the endowments in half. what we found out was that when the endowment had less money to give out in grants the private sector started to give less money for grants and to help these institutions. and i applaud the gentleman for being a leader in his local arts community. the americans for the arts did a major study four, five years ago about the economic impact of the arts. and the gentleman from virginia is absolutely correct. the arts have exploded across the country. we have given grants now in almost every single congressional district, which has helped the proliferation of arts institutions, consolidations doesn't scare me.

in some areas that might be a good idea. i have seen in the seattle area and tacoma how much this has meant to the local communities. and this is a relatively small amount of money. when i was chairman of the committee, i increased it, but i never increased it in an amount that the republican ranking member could not also support. so, why didn't we put up the $250 million. we have an arts caucus in the congress that operates on a bipartisan basis and we have had on the floor over the years a multiple of votes. and we have had 40 or 50 enlightened republicans who have joined with us and made a good majority in support of these programs. and the humanities is also

extremely important, literature and in education and helping art teachers. so i think these are worthy programs. i think the committee made the right decision here. i wish it was at $167.5 million and reduced it to $145 million. i think going further than that will do damage to both of these endocuments that have been both been there since 1965 in the johnson administration. and i think this would be a mistake. i support what the committee did and we should stay with that number. thank you. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady rise? mrs. maloney: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: i rise in opposition to this amendment and want to state that the arts not

only contribute to education and enlightenment, they are important job creators. n.e.a. contributes to the development and economic growth of communities nationwide and each year the arts industry generates 1 -- $166 billion in economic activity and provides 5.7 million full-time jobs. in my district alone, nearly 120,000 people are employed in the museums, theaters, art gentleladieries and other arts organizations that i'm proud to represent. so this is not the moment for trying to score political points in the name of fiscal responsibility. and we should not be proposing deep cuts that will take effect right away and destroy jobs in the arts and other places at the very time we are trying like mad to create them. this threatens our recovery just as the economy is bouncing back

from the worst recession in decades and proves that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are tone deaf to the american people's number one priority, which is jobs. earlier this week, president obama laid out a budget that makes tough choices, a thoughtful budget, that includes a five-year freeze on nondefense discretionary spending and reduces the deficit by $1.1 trillion. it does all of this while making important investments in education, infrastructure, jobs and our nation's competitiveness, investments that will prepare us to compete now and in the future. as the president said at his press conference on tuesday, when it comes to this budget, we need to use a scap will, not a machete. the republicans by contrast are making deep, painful and

arbitrary cuts, cuts that will result in more than 200,000 children being dropped from head start, thousands of teachers would lose their jobs and be forced to leave the classroom, $2.5 billion cuts in n.i.h., 1,300 fewer cops would be on the beat, which restored on the floor earlier. fewer firefighters through the elimination of a safer grant, which again, we fought to restore, science and energy research to help drive our clean energy economy would be reduced. and the horrible list goes on and on, including this cut that is before us right now. and let's be clear, cutting education, the arts, letting our infrastructure deteriorate further and failing to harness

energy is declining in a global economy. we must invest in the future, invest in creating jobs. and this grant to the national endowment of the arts is an important investment that will pay dividends years down the road. and i strongly support the program and am opposed to the gentleman's proposal to cut it. and i would like to include in the record the rest of my comments. but in the interest of time, yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment . those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the knows have it -- nose have it.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. walberg: request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- clerk will read. the clerk: page 281, line 22, section 1769, level for national foundation on the arts and the humanities, national endowment for the humanities grants administration $145 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment in the desk preprinted in the record amendment number 249. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 249 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. canseco of

texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. canseco: my amendment is very simple. it would eliminate federal funding for the national capital affairs arts and program which the underliing funds is at $4.5 million. this provides noncompetitive grant funding for overhead costs to spart our programs in the district of columbia exclusively. in this budget last year and this year, president obama has requested that this program's funding be cut by 50%, which the underlying legislation does. in this year's budget, president obama notes that in general, these institutions are also able to apply for federal funding from other sources. i'm not here to debate the merits of the program.

i'm not here to question whether or not the money has been used by the institutions to accomplish good things. what i'm here to do today is to debate and question why this program should be considered a priority and receive taxpayer funding when we are in a fiscal crisis. make no mistake, we are in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only our economic security, but our national security. however, you don't have to take my word for it. admiral mike musclen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said i think the biggest thing we have to our national security is our debt. dr. ridland, former office of budget and mant -- management director said last february, on any reasonable sets of economic assumptions, the u.s. budget is on an unsustainable track.

there is no disagreement among the office of management and budget. the congressional budget office, the government accountability office and leading private forecasters on where the budget is headed if we do not change course and she continued, the growing deficit will be more and more difficult and expensive to finance. ultimately, we will not be able to borrow enough to finance the widening gap between spending and revenues. even before the government spending spree that occurred under president obama, then speaker pelosi and majority leader harry reid began our nation was headed for a day of fiscal reckoneding. they simply speed up the day our nation will hurdle off the fiscal cliff, increasing nondefense discretionary spending by 84% in just two years. under their leadership, federal spending has risen to levels as

a share of our economy not seen since world war ii and resulted in the federal government borrowing approximately 40 cents out of every dollar we spend. where's all this headed if we don't stop our spending? if you followed the situations that occurred last year in greece, you know that that nation had to make many painful choices very quickly because it had spent too much and investors were demanding higher interest rates to take on the risks associated with buying greece's debt. if we don't get our fiscal house in order, what occurred in greece is a present have you of events to come to america if we don't stop the spending, we will be the first generation of americans to leave the next generation with a legacy of less freedom and prosperity. do we want to leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of

debt and limited opportunity? we have two choices. we can either stop the spending that is driving our fiscal crisis or we can continue to -- continue the spending and one day become a next greece. madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair understands the gentleman to offer amendment number 249. the clerk will read into the next paragraph. the clerk: the level for national capital arts and cultural affairs $4,500 000. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. moran: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: this would entirely

eliminate funding for a proven, successful program. the capital arts program was created in 1986 to fill a substantial funding gap to supplement the private arts groups in our nation's capital. it now pounds 23 such groups. in every other major city in the united states, major private arts groups receive funds from the state arts council which is frequently have such a major institution's funding category. that's not particularly important. but those who are solved in arts organizations understand that that's the money they depend upon. in d.c. they don't have that money to depend upon. no similar flow of government funds from any level is available to major arts groups in washington, d.c. the 23 groups that receive this money employ thousands of people.

outreach efforts to schoolchildren is one of the principle -- principal things that is funded through this capital arts grant program. if we didn't have this, those outreach programs would be virtually eliminated. they constitute almost all of the artsout reach and arts educational programs available to children in the d.c. schools and schools in the suburbs. it's a program that has widespread popular support. it's not a lot of money for each organization, but it's essential money to enable them to continue functioning. the fact that we're talking about such a small amount of money in the context of such an enormous deficit, it just -- it really seems wrong that children in our nation's capital would be denied outreach from these arts

institutions that are approximate to where they -- that are proximate to where they live but are wholly inaccessible without this funding. i urge we have a het, particularly for the children and the schools in washington, d.c., reject this amendment and leave this very small amount of money in this appropriations bill. thank you, madam chairman. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment and strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member, mr. moran. this is a program that was created because the arts institutions in the district of columbia, many of them do not get any support from the district of columbia government, there's no state government, in new york, they get money from the city, from

the boroughs, from the state government. for the major arts institutions. this program was a very modest program that helps 23 performing arts institutions that -- which are extremely important, all of which have very solid educational programs that help inner city youth here, we have a high population of inner city youth in the district of columbia. so i just think this has been a proven program. it is very modest. it's been cut in half. last year, i think we had about $9.5 million, it's been cut in half, i think we should leave that. i think the committee has made a decision and to go further would be in my mind punitive. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. canseco: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 282, line 8, section 1771, the level for presidio trust, presidio trust fund, $11 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 381, offered by mr. reed of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. reed: thank you, madam chair. i rise today in support of my amendment seeking to rescind $15 million of funds out of this continuing resolution. as i've listened to the debate here this evening and yesterday and over the last few days, as

a freshman member of congress, i've come to a realization that part of the problem is that many members of this esteemed body look at our spending in terms of it's a relatively small amount of money. it's a small sum. but we're talking about millions of dollars, we're talking about $15 million in this situation. now, i propose this amendment without any disrespect to any member of this house. but i propose it in a time when we face a national crisis that goes to our very existence for generations to come. a nation that won't be here for our children and grandchildren. and when i look at the presidio trust fund and look at the park, it's a great park, i concede that point, but the plan for the park was to be self-sufficient. upon researching, going through page by page of this budget, doing the hard work my staff

and i have uncovered that this park is at the point where it can be self-sufficient on its own. they have received grants of $80,000 from the cowell foundation for three projects, they have a $15 million gift from the private sector from evelyn and walter has. lucasarts are leasing portions of the park, it's a private revenue stream. this is a success story. at this point, it's time for us to put all our cards on the table and say, now that you are standing on your own two feet, when we face the fiscal crisis, this government now has to make a responsible decision. to me that responsibility decision is to allow the park to stand on its own two feet. it has shown plenty of ability to do that. and save the children and grandchildren so that we can have a nation that they can be proud of and have a nation that they can live in because that's

the point that we are in our nation's history. so i stand today and ask your support for this amendment. i think it is a responsible action to do and i applaud this process because this process is being conducted in the open and through a vigorous debate. that's what the american people have called upon us to do. no line of our spending shall be left under stones. we shall uncover each stone and i urge all my fellow members to support this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment that would eliminate funding for the presidio trust. the presidio was in continuous use as a military post from 1776 until 1994. an army installation, the post was closed in 1994 as part of

the process and transferred to the national park service. in 1996, congress established the presidio trust to govern this unique national park site. and to ensure its preservation by making it financially self-sustaining. that's exactly what has happened. other the past 12 years, appropriations as a percentage of the overall trust budget have been reduced from over 95% frl fund -- federal funding inphysial year 1998 to less than 20% in fiscal year 2010. the current ratio of private investment in the presidio to federal appropriations is already greater than four to one. appropriations, though, are authorized through fiscal year 2012. that was the deal. after 2012, the trust itself, by itself, alone, is

responsible for long-term operations and maintenance of the presidio. since it took over management of the presidio in 1998, the trust has rehabilitated and leased 97% of the preside's housing units and rehabilitated 75% of the presidio's 433 very historic buildings. i've been there, i've seen it, it's phenomenal what the trust has accomplished. eliminating funds just one year short of its goal violates the spirit of the 1996 law. and it undermines the trust's ability to achieve self-sufficiency. this would result in higher future obligations as the federal government might have to assume full responsibility to maintain thes historic properties. it also sends a terrible signal to communities across the country that may also have innovative solutions in partnering with the federal government. they're time controlled, in

other words, it's not forever, but they say for a certain period of time if you partner with us, we'll take this responsibility off your hands. the $23 million appropriated for the trust in fiscal year 2010 has created 860 jobs. federal appropriations in this current fiscal year will help expedite rehabilitation of historic buildings and take advantage of favorable construction costs that exist today. at a recent oversight hearing that members of our appropriations subcommittee received ashurens that the trust will accomplish its financial stewardship and public use goals. that was the deal. they said we'll meet our part of the deal, assuming that the federal government will meet its obligation. that's one of the nation's oldest and most important military posts. the trust has had some unique, extraordinary challenges since the defense department closed down its installations but the trust is well on its way to meeting its lem slative

objectives. it should not be undermined by this amendment. this has worked well, it's an example for the rest of the country. let it serve as an example. one more year to go, then it will be off our books, the trust will take over responsibility and we will point out that this is the way to do it. in partnership. where we will not be perpetually responsible but in fact the private sector will come in, let the market work and have a national gym, really a national a-- national gem, really, a national asset for everyone to visit an learn from. madam chair, i yield the balance of my time but strongly urge opposition to this amendment. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise in concurrence with the statements of my ranking member. funding is $8.2 million below

the enacted level in 2008 and below the 2007 level. when the defense department closed down the park it was transferred to the parks service. it could have been turned over thth national parks service and run as a historic park but that would have cost tens of billions of dollars per year to the taxpayers. instead, congress devised a unique management and funding model by creating the presidio trust to pe serve the presidio and help it become financially self-sufficient. the trust manages 80% of presidio lands including most of the lands and infrastructure. the park service manages the remain 20g%. the presidio trust receives federal appropriations that are diminishing each year and as was mentioned will cease at the end of fy-2012 when it becomes self-sufficient. this truly is a model of how we can do these things where they will become self-sufficient and

off the roll of the taxpayer but our part of this is we have to keep our end of the deal. through fy-2012, we need to make sure we keep our word on what was agreed on in 1996 and let this presidio trust take over and become self-sufficient at the end of the next fiscal year. i rise in opposition to this amendment and would encourage my colleagues to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 o-- 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 282, line 11, section 1772, the level for

dwight d. eisenhower memorial commission, $0. section 1773, the level for dwight d. eisenhower memorial commission, capital construction, $0. section 1774, section 40 of division a of public law 111-88 is ameppeded. section 1775, the level for section 415 of division a of public law 111-88, $0. . section 4 3 of division a of public law 111-88 is amended. not later than 30 days of the enactment of this division, agencies shall submit to the house and senate committees on appropriations the spending, expenditure or operating plan for fiscal year 2011. section 1778, none of the funds made available by this division may be used to implement,

administer nor enforce secretaryial order number issued by the secretary of the interior on september 22, 2010. title 8, labor, health and human services, education and related agencies. section 1801, level for department of labor, employment and training administration, training and employment services , $22,699,5000. section 1802, obligated balances for department of labor, departmental management, office of job corps, $300 million is rescinded. obligated balance of the funds made available for department of labor, employment and training administration, training and employment services, federally administered programs dislocated assistance national reserve and divings d $100 million is

rescinded. section 1804, unobligated balances of the funds made available for the department of labor, employment and training administration, training and employment services, national activities evaluation, $10 million is rescinded. section 1805, level for department of labor, employment and training administration community service employment for older americans, $300,425,000. section 1806, level for department of labor, mine safety, salaries and expenses, $355,843,000. section 1807, level for department of labor, departmental management $315,154,000. section 1808, unobligated balances available for department of labor, working capital fund, $3,900,000 is

rescinded. department of health and human services, health resources and services administration, health resources and services, $5,313 ,137,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: as i visit all the communities of my district, i'm asked about high unemployment, how government can help promote job growth and how we can get

the economy working again for families trying to make ends meet. it is clear that the top priority in new york and across the country is creating jobs. but when i'm in washington, i don't hear the house leadership answering that call. since the beginning of the year, we have yet to debate a single bill that would create a single job. there have been no attempts to make the targeted investments in innovation and education that will help us win the next century as the president mentioned in the state of the union. in the last decade, unemployment has skyrocketed while the number of abortions has decreased. yet today, the majority is pursuing an extreme assault on women's health and reproductive rights by eliminating the cost-effective family planning

program. my amendment would restore $317 million for title 10 family planning because it is a wise investment. publicly supported family planning clinics save taxpayers nearly $4 for every $1 that is spent for providing contraceptive care. in new york, more than 430,000 women are served by title 10 funding clinics and 66% have incomes at or below poverty level. elimination of the program in the c.r. would only guarantee higher government health care costs for these low-income americans in future years. if our goal is to cut spending, it is reckless to eliminate this program that saves taxpayer dollars. it is unconscionable that those americans who most need access to the affordable basic health

care title 10 provides, cancer screenings, contraceptives have become victims of the extreme right divisive partisan attempts to deny women a full range of health services. even as we consider this wrong-headed bill, they are at the same time pursuing legislation in authorizing committees to roll back the clock on a women's right to choose. women services available to victims of rape and incest and even allow hospitals to deny life saving treatment for women. not once have i heard a constituent say, it's important for the government to get to work on restricting women's health choices and denying basic care. at a time of high unemployment and enormous economic challenges, congress should focus on job creation.

the assault on women's health must stop now. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: move to strike the last word. the republican majority has proposed to eliminate title 10 funding which has connected millions of american women to health care since 1970. in 2009, 2010, performed 2.2 million breadth exams and pap tests and h.i.v. tests to men and women both. this republican congress is trying to turn back the clock on women's health and women's basic rights. they are taking us back to a day when family planning was not a given opportunity for women. in connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit from care at title 10 funded health

centers each year. 70% of them have a family income of less than $16,245 a year. this is the only way they can afford health care. six of every 10 women who seek care in a title 10 funded center consider it the main source of medical care. and yet the majority is trying to take these important services away. we -- it is argued we need to cut title 10. for every dollar, taxpayers save just under $4. preventative care and family planning services supported by family services save lives and save money. it is a breathtaking and radical step to cut funding. it is launching an assault on title 10 which would endanger women's health. understanding their purpose has nothing to do with the deficit. they want to impose their traditional view of a women's role. let's get real. this legislation is not about federal funding for abortion.

federal funds including title 10 are banned going towards abortion services under the hyde amendment. this is part of an agenda to force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunities. under their proposals, more than 5 million people lose access. as a cancer survivor myself who is here today because my cancer was found in stage one, i can tell you losing access to screenings will cost lives. it comes down to this, the proposal to eliminate title 10 is a bad policy, will hurt women and it costs money. instead of making it harder for women to get health care, we should be standing up for these vital services. the american public called for job creation in turning our economy around last november, i believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not heeded this call. this bill would do nothing to create jobs nor reduce the deficit. on behalf of women and middle

-class working families, i urge my colleagues to leave this extreme measure out of the picture and should not be plague games with women's health and basic rights. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does gentlewoman from alabama rise? >> i move to strike the last word. mrs. roby: i oppose increased funding for title 10. we should not allocate federal funds to fund planned parenthood. planned parenthood has made plain mandating that every

affiliate have one clinic performing abortions within the next two years. it is beyond shocking that planned parenthood employees were found on video aiding and abetting in the alleged sex trafficking of minors. this is not the first time that planned parenthood has shown such shocking behavior. it happened in my home state in alabama back in 2009. a planned parenthood counselor was caught on hidden camera telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic bends the rules. two years later, we are still seeing this outrageous behavior by planned parenthood employees. it is time to stop funding such an organization with taxpayer dollars. planned parenthood ignores statutory rape law reporting and opposes any effort to elevate the legal status of the fetus in

any stage of development. it is not a proud day that citizens learn that these activities have been funded by the federal government. it is an even worst day when we are told that our government has funded planned parenthood with more than $363 million in government grants and contracts. through fiscal year 1998, title 10 has seen increased funding for 10 of the 12 years. from 1998 to 2010, title 10 funding has increased by over 56%. in appropriations for fiscal year 2010, title 10 saw a 3.3% increase in funding, which was a $10 million increase over 2009 funding. this is unacceptable spending at a time when we must cut federal spending. the continual action by planned parenthood and its employees is demeaning for women and black eye on our society. funding must be stopped. we should not spend any more taxpayer dollars to push planned

parenthood's agenda to take away the rights of the unborn. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment to add money to title 10. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 288, line 15, -- line 16, section 1810, the level department of health and human services, centers for disease control and prevention, disease control research and training $5,272,989,00. section 1811, level for department of health and human services, national institutes of health, national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, $4 billion. section 1812, the amount provided by section 1101 for

department of health and human services national institutes of health is reduced by $260 million. section 1813, the level for department of health and human services, national institutes of health, buildings and facilities $22,700,000. the department for health and human services substance and administration substance abuse and mental health services. >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify the number on your amendment, please? >> number 565. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 565 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. bass of new hampshire. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for five minutes.

mr. bass: i thank the gentlelady. my amendment adds $50 million to the low-income energy assistance program otherwise as liheap. winters in the northeast are long and hard and especially this year, it's been difficult. it's been a tough year. in january, we saw twice the average amount of snow, temperatures have been well below average in some parts of the country and there are similar stories not only in new hampshire, but elsewhere in the northeast and around the nation. . the problem with reducing the contingency fund and the low nrnl plan, we are in the middle of winter now. what my amendment does is add $50 million to make sure we have resources to make it through march and into april. the amendment also reduces the

substance abuse and mental health services by an equivalent amount but that's only 1% of the total funding for that line item. let me point out that what this amendment will do will assure that low-income individuals in america have the necessary resources in order to ensure that they have adequate heat throughout the rest of the year. now, you know, this is -- this is a difficult process that we're going through here. i recognize there are this is a very small change in a safety net that provides an enormous resource very quickly. we can debite the -- debate the rest of the low energy income assistance plan later in the year. what this $50 million increase does is make it possible to get through the winter. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back

the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: i rise in on session. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rehberg: we accept this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. the gentlewoman from connecticut. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new hampshire will be postponed. the clerk will read. clip page -- the clerk: page 292, line 1, section 1815, the amount included under the north carolina research and quality of division d of public law 111-117 shall be applied to

funds appropriated by a substituting $372,365,000 for $397,360,000. section 1816, amounts transferred from the trust fund for department of health and human services center for medicare and medicaid services for program management, $3, 012,162,000. section 1818, the department of health and human services for low income children and families, low income assistance, $-- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i rise to offer an amendment preprinted in the congressional record and designated as amendment number 60. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise in mr. rehberg: i reserve a point of order. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: we all recognize we must make calculated decisions to drive down our deficit but today we see the cold calculations of the republican leadership who are cutting hundreds of millions of dollars to help our nation's poorest families heat their homes while continuing the billions in taxpayer subsidies we send to big oil companies. my amendment would fully restore liheap funding and reduce the deficit by repealing these $40 billion in tax breaks for big oil. oil companies don't need the 100--year-old tax breaks to sell $100 per barrel oil while making $100 billion per year. for millions of families across the country this year, heating

bills have been piling up along with the snow. so have the record number of people who are turning to liheap to help them get through the winter. in my state of massachusetts alone, liheap is projected to help 250,000 family this is winter. even as the mercury has dropped, house republicans are now considering dropping this important safety net for millions of low income families nationwide. the only way this bill is going to help families heat their homes would be if they tossed all 359 pages in the fireplace. it takes a frigid heart for the republican leadership to continue to defend tax breaks for oil and gas companies while putting assistance for america's neediest on ice but that's what they are doing. the majority spending bill presents with us a false choice. we shouldn't be cutting heating assistance for the poorest families before repealing the $40 billion in tax subsidies to big oil companies, the most profitable companies in the

history of the world. the republicans can continue to make their choices but the plern people will not stand with them when they are faced with giving tax breaks to exxon or assistance to low income americans, they have chosen exxon. when they are forced to choose between a free lunch for b.p. or choose lunch for hungry senior citizens, they make the choice for b.p. western not be balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest families. i urge support for amendment to protect the neediest amongst us with a no vote on this coldhearted funding bill. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise in mr. rehberg i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21, the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law and the amendment directly amends existing law. i can for a ruling from the

chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change existing law, to wit, the internal revenue code of 1986. as such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2-c of rule 21, the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the continuing resolution. instead of fighting a war on cancer, this bill declares a a war on cancer research and those who undertake it. the national institutes of health director said it best when he warned the proposed cuts would have dire and lethal consequences. he's right. the proposed $1.6 billion cut for the national institutes of health would undermine the most successful innovation model the world has ever seen. the classic view of innovation is that government funds basic

science while industry comes up with new, innovative science base odden that science. over the past 40 years new federal drug administration approve drugs and vaccines were discovered through research carried out at public institutions with federal funds. in the last 20 years alone, one out of every five medical advances was invented in a federally funded lab. those advances are yen rating more than $100 billion a year for drug and biotechnology firms. this includes drugs like herceptin for breast cancer, gllevac for tumors that inhibit and block cancer cell growth. in this research in cancer alone supports over 1,300 clinical trials each year for promising new therapies for more than 200,000 cancer

patients. president nixon a republican, recognized the need for public commitment when he signed the national cancer act in 1971. last year under president obama, $5 billion was provided to the national cancer institute to continue this funding. decreasing the budget by 5%, disrupting this tremendously successful innovation model. the only failure in cans eresearch is when you quit or you're forced to quit because of the lack of funding. our sustained commitment to biochemical research is vital to my community in western new york where approximately $100 million in federal funding supports research each and every year. institutions like rosswell park cancer institute, medical research institute, the university of buffalo, companies along the buffalo-niagara medical campus rely on this funding for research and translate that research into products to improve the quality of life.

the cuts would hurt not only these institutions and small businesses, it would hurt the wire buffalo exunt community that is realizing the tremendous economic benefit of this reserming, alleviating suffering due to diseases like cancer in our lifetime should be congress' goal. this continuing resolution falls dangerously short of that and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. >> right now, through 2010, we spent $172 billion on alzheimer's patients. medicare and medicaid. you're cutting the budget on n.i.h. to find a cure for alzheimer's. by the time all the baby boomers have retired, the budget for each rear will be $1 trillion to take care of the 15 million baby boomers that will have alzheimer's in nursing homes. what are you guys doing? you're saying we'll cut the budget for medicaid which pays for alzheimer's patients in nursing home and cut the budget

for the cure for the funding for the nmple i.h. mr. markey: you're having it both ways no cure and you're then going to cut the money for these families in the medicare and medicaid budget. you shouldn't do this. the nmple i.h., the national -- they're the national institutes of hope. research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give hope to millions of families in our country. you are cutting this budget and not gives us an opportunity to make an amendment which we'll be able to put the funding into the n.i.h. budget. that's a very bad moral decision which you are making. you're sending false hope to people that you're actually solving the problem by cutting the n.i.h. budget but all of those people who are going to have alzheimer's, and it's a demographic certainty are going to cost $1 trillion a year by 2050. you are doing nothing about that right now. by the way you won't have the courage to tell people, you're not going to take care of them in nursing homes because that

demographic will be so strong. put the money back in n.i.h. for alzheimer's, for parkinson's, for all these diseases. let's at least agree on that as a bipartisan issue that all our families will be equally struck by all of these decisions. the gentleman from new york has put a spotlight on this issue. a stitch in time saves nine. doing this now will save not nine, but 900 times the money that will have to be spent on all these patients. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: it is a demographic certainty. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. rush: i'm here to speak out about the lack of trauma centers throughout the nation. i introduce an amendment which i am withdrawing. madam speaker in my home state of illinois, our freshmanly members are dying due to the tragic lack of level one trauma centers in close proximity to those who need it. sadly, our newspaper headlines including yesterday's "chicago sun-times," are filled with stories, tragic stories of victims struck by bullets, stabbed and other kinds of trauma visited upon them. despite the best efforts of witnesses, bystanders and arriving paramedics, the lack of nearby level one trauma centers dramatically reduces survival rates and ties up

long-term acute care needs and costs. madam speaker, in 1999, my son, 29 years old, was shot two blocks from the hospital but he couldn't go to that hospital because they didn't have a level one trauma center. so they had to transfer him to -- transport him some 10 miles away where eventually he passed. this is just one example of a sad story. it is not only patently unfair but it's an injustice that in a nation as vast and prosperous as ours that we have a tragic lack of such a misplaced priorities by not having level one trauma centers close to the communities where people reside. the fact that a community -- that a community that's home to about 750,000 people on the

south side of chicago, an overwhelming portion of which is in my congressional district, does not have one, not one level one trauma care center results in needless loss of life for far too many of us. the chair: the gentleman's will suspend. the committee will be in order. mr. rush: our nation has seen time and time again the amazing work that gifted trauma surgeons and fully equipped trauma care facilities can deliver to poor patients -- to pull patients back from almost certain death. what i want to ensure, madam speaker, is that the same level of fairness available in the affluent communities in this thation is also available to the men, the women, and the children in low-income communities. .

the aforementioned editorial in "the chicago sun times" reported on the tragic set of circumstances detailing the story of an 18-year-old trauma victim who was struck in a drive-by shooting last august and could not go to the nearby university of chicago medical center that was only four blocks away because that facility did not have a trauma center. the university of chicago hospital, one of the major hospitals in this nation, does not have a number one trauma center. instead, at a time when every moment counts, every minute counts to save a life, paramedics had to drive the victim nine miles to the nearest number one trauma center. northwestern memorial hospital where the victim later drifed.

madam speaker, situations like this simply should not happen in america. as i stand here today, i'm fully aware of the needs of funding for our trauma centers for the financial losses that they incur. the national trauma care foundation has estimated the economic loss of trauma centers due to their treatment of the uninsured and underinsured patients is $230 million per year. in the same "sun times" editorial i mentioned before, they also reported on a study last year by the robin wood johnson foundation that founded almost 3/4 of the nation's emergency rooms, are unable to provide around-the-clock specialty care at 1/4 of the

hospitals and are the reason for the loss of their downgrading trauma care designation. we need to address the nationwide shortage of trauma care especially in underserved areas. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> motion to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i rise in support of representative bass' amendment in support of the low-income home energy assistance program. it cuts the liheap program by almost $400 million. this program is crucial to the homeowners in the northeast, specifically in my district of staten island and brooklyn, new york. liheap helps low-income families and seniors remain healthy and secure from cold winters in the north and hot summers in the south, as well

as keeping them from having to face the impossible choice of paying their home energy bills or affording other necessities such as transcription drugs and food. at a time of record deficits and reduced spending, we must tighten our respective belts. however, it is imperative we make smart spending choices. that being said, i believe when given the choice between ensuring our seniors have the ability to heat their homes during frigid new york winters or putting even more money in the catch-all slush fund, at nasa there is no choice at all. as i have stated numerous times, i absolutely believe that deep budget cuts are required to get the government back on a sound, fiscal path. however, we must first look to cut spending that is truly wasteful. for that reason i stand in support of representative bass' amendment and i yield the rest of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: to cut liheap is $390 million. that was the decision that in fact it wasn't important enough for the well-being of people, whether they're in the northeast or whether in the midwest or other parts of the country which have very tough winters. so now what they would want to do is to take money from elsewhere, to other worthy programs that in fact have cut but would further cut. in the instance of mr. bass' amendment, he would reduce the money from samsa, and that is the money for substance abuse and mental illness.

what it does is help reduces impact of substance abuse and mental illness on america's communities by focusing its services on the people most in need. it transfers research and makes it useful and more effective so we can get this in the general health care system. how do you treat addiction? how do you treat mental illness? very difficult issues. so they would take that money but they have cut liheap. low-income energy assistance, which for the most part we're looking at low-income people, and if it applies to seniors, what they will do is they won't cook their food at the right temperature, and that puts their health in jeopardy. they will buy a space heater potentially and they put their lives in jeopardy. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really care about low-income energy assistance, they wouldn't have started to make their cuts

there. they would have moved to the $40 billion in subsidies for oil and gas. they would have moved elsewhere to look for this funding, and what they would have done is to cut back on the subsidies for special interests to do that. it is a bit disingenuous and it robs peter to pay paul, but i believe that's the nature of what this unfixable bill is all about. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i rise today to support the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from new york, mrs. lowey. this amendment will restore vital funding to the title 10 family funding program. now, i'm all in order of reducing our deficit and getting our fiscal house in order, but let's be clear on something. this cut to title 10 will not save money.

the opponents want us to believe cutting these funds is, quote, fiscally responsible and has to be done to balance our budget. mr. quigley: what they don't want us to know is investing in planning -- family planning saves money. for every $1 invested, taxpayers save nearly $4. so while cutting family planning appears to be a savings up front, over the long run it will cost us both in dollars and in health and in the well-being of millions of women. while we are being honest, let's also discuss the other motive for proponents of cutting title x. they argue cutting funds for family planning will reduce abortions. once again they are wrong. in fact, if they wanted to reduce abortions, they would increase funding for title 10. why? because title 10 services prevent nearly one million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. if you want to get serious about cutting federal spending and reducing abortions, a good start would be investing in

title 10, not eliminating it, which is exactly what this amendment will do. of course, in addition to reducing unintended pregnancies and saving taxpayers money, family planning providers like planned parenthood provide essential life-saving and preventative care. in 2009, title 10 providers performed 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million pap tests and six million tests for s.t.i.'s and for 6-10 women who receive care from women's health centers, this is their only source of health care. eliminating all funds for family planning would cut millions of women off their primary and in many cases, only source of health care. to the millions of women out there who want comprehensive reproductive health care, this is what they think of you. they think women should not have access to basic reproductive health care,

including birth control. recent legislation revealed that they think you shouldn't be able to access care even if you are a victim of rape or incest. this is what they think of you. all these bills reveal the true mindset of the opponents of choice. women are not capable of making their own decisions about their own health and their own lives. these cuts to family planning programs would have a devastating impact in my community. 10 planned parenthood health centers in illinois provide primary and preventative care including flu vaccines, diabetes screenings and cholesterol screenings and would all be forced to close. this would affect approximate 30,000 low-income patients and eliminates the jobs of 200 health center workers, not exactly the type of job stimulating legislation we should be focusing on. the conversation we're having today is not about choice but choices. with family planning, we can reduce abortions and save the federal government money.

without, we only pretend to do either. with family planning, we can embrace educating and providing health care to women. without, we abandon women who need care the most. with family planning we can empower the women of america without undermining them. we have the choice. and we must choose to stand up to these attacks and fight back against the mistruths because the health, well-being, and lives of millions of women and their families are at stake. this amendment is a strike against these wrong-headed cuts to family planning. i encourage my colleagues to restore funding to title 10, family planning programs and vote yes on mrs. lowey's amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in strong opposition to the continuing resolution because it ignores the needs of america's families and does nothing to create jobs,

strengthen the middle class, or effectively lower the deficit. the $1.3 billion cut to community health centers is astounding. in my district alone, if these cuts are enacted, over 112,000 individuals will suffer a significant loss in primary health services and they will be forced to use costly hospital emergency care. ms. roybal-allard: nationally these cuts mean health centers will be unable to serve 11 million patients over the next year. it means over 127 new health centers in underserved districts will lose their funds. and it means the loss of thousands of health care jobs. also on the chopping block is the title 10 program which provides over 8,000 men and women in my district with we productive health care and cancer screenings.

nationally, the $317 million cut to title 10 will force many clinics to close, eliminating another primary care safety net for five million men and women. also unbelievable is the $210 million in proposed cuts to the maternal and child health block grant program. this cut will devastate primary and preventative health services in california for an estimated 2.6 million pregnant women, infants, and special needs children. the cuts also endanger other critical programs such as california's newborn screening program which last year tested almost 550,000 newborns for treatable, genetic ynd metabolic diseases, which if

undetected could have become painful and life-threatening. on the national level, these cuts in grants will reduce or eliminate prenatal health services for two million women and primary health care for more than 17 million children. in a country that ranks far behind almost all other developed nations in maternal and infant outcomes, we can ill afford to slash funding for the only federal program that focuses solely on improving the health of mothers and their babies. madam chair, this bill is a trojan horse that pretends to address our nation's deficit crises at the expense of the most vulnerable among us. this bill is not worthy of this house, for it fails to honor the true priorities and values of the american people. and i urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this irresponsible resolution.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> madam chair, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. madam chair, i rise to speak in strong support of the lowey amendment reinstating the funding for the federal title 10 program which supports family funding services for all our constituents. while we all agree on the need to reduce spending, it is just bad policy to eliminate a proven, successful program that saves the taxpayer money and provides critical health care services for our mothers, our sisters, our friends. this is bad policy. the title 10 program, the only federal program devoted to family planning is the core of the public effort to ensure that all women regardless of income have the knowledge and health care they need to plan for their families. mrs. capps: its flexible grant

funds not only help pay for direct client services but also help to ensure that state and local governments, and nonprofit organizations across the country can place safety net clinics in the communities that need them the most. . these clinics the primary health care for women. by helping women and couples plan and face their pregnancies. family planning services have led to health year women and children and instrumental in the long struggle for women's equality in education, the work force and society. in light of the economic downturn, the freedom that the title 10 program has given to women in the work force is particularly important. but this program hasn't just been successful for over 4.5 million americans who use it every year, but successful for the american taxpayer. as every dollar spent on this program saves our nation nearly

$4 in return. in light of the important role that family planning has played in health care and society, the centers for disease control and prevention has called family planning one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century along side the other critical break throughs like vaccinations and campaign against smoking. title 10 family planning funding was enacted on unanimous vote in the senate by an overwhelming majority in the house. when signed into law, then president richard nixon said it fulfilled a promise that no american woman should be denied access to family planning because of her economic conditions. how far we have come to this day where we have the research to prove that a program works and yet the house republican leadership has recklessly decided to cut it completely.

eliminating title 10 now would be a devastating blow to the health, security and the dreams of millions of american women and their families. denying five million women preventative care, including annual exams, contraceptive services, testing and treatment for sexually disses. if members want to reduce our deficit, we would double funding for family planning which could save taxpayer dollars nearly $2 billion per year and yet for some reason my friends on the other side of the aisle believe cutting this program, defunding a program that actually saves americans money and improves the health of millions of americans, that somehow this is a good idea. for those members who are opposed to title 10 funding, i ask you, how do you plan to ensure that the women in your district and state have access to--saving practices.

the sham of this bill has no answers, but broken promises. let's be clear a vote against title 10 is a vote for unintended pregnancies and vote for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and it is a vote for increased rate of cervical cancer and breast cancer if caught late if at all and a vote for increased abortion rates. i would like to think of this as an oversight. this is not the first attack on women's access to health care. combined with the mean-spirited bills moving through the house committees that reopen the culture wars, it is obvious that this extreme and reckless proposal by the republican majority to defund title 10 clinics is the next step in an all out republican assault on women's health. this congress should be focused on creating jobs for the

millions of moms working to put food on the table, not attacking their rights and their health. i urge my colleagues to support the lowey amendment to add some common sense to this omnibus spending bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. lee: i move to strike the last word. let me say i'm shock and appalled by the speaker when he said so be it in relation to the continuing job losses. independent analysis by the nonpartisan policy institute indicates that this bill will result in the direct loss, mind you of 800,000 private and public sector jobs. instead of everything -- instead of doing everything we can do to halt the loss of jobs and put people back to work, this bill takes the wrong approach putting our economy and our country back on the path to recession. for every job opening in this

country, we have 4.7 unemployed people who are looking for work. why would we want to add to their numbers? so be it cannot and should not be our response to this economic crisis, not with a 9% unemployment rate and over 15% in communities of color and record layoffs and furloughs at the state level and especially not when republicans are demanding tax break for millionaires and billionaires paid for through board money. this is wrong and i am moral. as a member of the house appropriation subcommittee on labor, health and human services and education, i am in strong opposition to these cruel cuts. budgets are moral documents and they are a reflection of who we are and what we value. this spending bill makes it clear that the poor, young, women, the elderly, teachers, firefighters, cops and the communities that they protect and serve are not valued.

make no mistake, this bill will harm the most vulnerable among us and it represents a wrong-headed approach to reducing the deficit or expanding job growth in our country. madam chairman, i'm concerned about the proposed cuts to education and training programs. among the range of cuts include work force investment acts programs which last year helped over 8.4 million job seekers find jobs. they got additional education and job training support. this is being cut. all told, when counting recisions of prior funding, elimination of the requested funding to run these employment and training programs, they will experience a $5 billion cut. republican cuts will prolong the recession and keep americans collecting unemployment instead of training and getting ready for our 21st job opportunities.

how can we cut job training programs in the middle of an economic crisis? how will my republican colleagues respond to the unemployed who come to them and ask them for help? will they say so be it? pell grants provide funding to students but who need help. in my district alone, there are 16 institutions that provide pell grants to over 18,000 recipients. this proposal would cut pell grants by $845, making college less affordable and accessible for low and moderate-income students. more than 8 million student -- benefit from pell grants and many would be hurt by this cut especially if schools are rising tuition fees and dealing with rising state budgets. the budget eliminates federal funding for supplemental education opportunity grants which colleges and universities use to assist undergraduates who

have the greatest financial need. that program assisted 1.3 million college students last year. head start under this proposal is cut by nearly $1.1 billion. this will knock out 200,000 children mind you in republican and democrat districts from participating in this critical early education program. this helps provide health, nutrition and supportive services to prepare our children for school. the job corps program, this is cut by $891 million which will result in job loss in communities in every state. the majority of which are in the private sector. 1.7 billion is lost in economic activity as a result of this. 36,000 at-risk young people will be turned away from job corps, costing the government and the economy as much as $17 billion over the course of their lifetime. additionally, the cuts will

guarantee the closure, mind you, of 75 jop corps centers across the nation, in your districts and our districts. slashing one of the most effective, accountable and market-driven programs and this is the wrong move at the wrong time. the majority has said they want to cut the deficit, but in effect, they are cutting the social safety net, cutting the lifeline for those who need it the most. this c.r. leads us down a path in hopelessness and joblessness and destroys the future for our young people. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair. let me thank the ranking member, former chair of the health and human services or former member of that committee, now the ranking member, ms. delauro and

the manager and chairman of the subcommittee. i thought that we live in a country that was the land of the free and the brave. we had a sense of pride in the progress that america has made, and we have always said we never want to go back whether it has to do with actual equal rights for women, whether it is civil rights and the ability to be empowered to vote. i sat on the floor today with a great deal of disappointment because it seems as if with this continuing resolution that will literally will stop in its tracks the functioning of this government, we are really going back. i rise to support -- the house is not in order. the chair: would the folks in the back of the room please

suspend their conversation. the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. jackson lee: i rise in support of the lowey amendment, because i really can't believe that this c.r. is eliminating $327 million in family planning. it just baffles the mind that this critical aspect of health care is now in jeopardy, is now being part of turning the block back. it is amazing that we would not acknowledge the fact that lives of women have been saved, lives of young women have been saved because they have had access to family planning. as much as we have fought to be able to ensure around the world indigent women who have lost their lives through the birthing process have had access to good medical care and yes family planning so they can have live births, now we come here to the soil of the united states and to

take $327 million out of the mouths and the hands of women and children, yes, children, who can be born healthy, children who are part of the health care process, that these women are able to secure through the many clinics that are around this nation and in this community. i'm disappointed of the games that are played with planned parenthood. and to be able to demonize them with false and fraudulent taping and a lot of bogus arguments about the fact that they are not in the business of helping people. i'm disappointed in using those tactics, because this is a very serious issue. ms. lowey's amendment addresses the seriousness of it because she realizes if we go through with the elimination of $327 million, there would be many, many lives that would be lost. we have a planned parenthood office in my community. it is mostly focusing its

attention on educating the community about healthy births, about ensuring that teenagers are not alone when decisions have to be made, decisions that will allow for the healthy birth or determination that is made by their faith leader and their family. they will not be left alone. in fact, family planning and planned parenthood extinct issues i hope for good the back alley procedures and as well as well the rusty hangers that were used in the past. we heard of a horrible abortion clinics that saw the lives lost of mothers and babies because of the tactics that were being used. we speak of the right of a woman to be able to choose but also to accept the good health care of family planning. we speak of the rights of the constitution and the declaration of independence that really assures that we are all created equal with certain inalienable

rights. the bill of rights which allows us due process. that is what is being denied in this continuing resolution. for as we speak if that money is eliminated, clinics around america will have their doors closed and women will be outside banging on the door and asking for good health care. i ask my colleagues to support congresswoman lowey's amendment and not take this nation back and eliminate $327 million and denying good health care for america's women and america's children. let us support the lowey amendment and let us reject the elimination of $327 million and in family planning and this continuing resolution, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey is rising? .

. mr. pallone: we must out innovate, outeducate and outbuild the rest of the world. but the house republican continuing resolution will do none of that. what it accomplishes is irresponsible slashing of necessary programs, just so they can go back home and say they cut government spending. now, i'm not sure if our republican colleagues realize that actions have consequences. house republicans are going too far and sacrificing america's health, safety in the process and what makes it worse is they're offering no real plan to deal with the deficit and create jobs. madam speaker, america's competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate and keep america number one but instead this bill holds $2.5 billion in cuts to the national institutes of health representing a significant setback in cancer

and other disease research. we have to fund programs like n.i.h. that are responsible for december emanating research and help in developing new drugs and devices. funding for research and development has an impact on all sectors of our work force and i want to use my home state of new jersey as an example. a report that was released last year shows the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries are the leaders in private sector capital construction in new jersey. in fact, in 2008, that meant $1.4 billion to the state and almost 6,000 jobs for construction alone. in addition, there's a new report, research america, that knows that new jersey is the third largest r&d employer in the united states with more than 211,000 jobs supported by health r&d, including 50,000 direct jobs in health r&d, and the same report shows the

economic impact in new jersey is $60 billion. that's why i believe we must provide r&d incentives, additional research grants and more technology funding. these investments will provide new jobs, not only in the research sector but in the construction and maintenance of labs and research facilities. so, madam speaker, the government must be responsible for facilitating an environment americans can continue to innovate. this is what president obama talked about in his state of the union speech. that is the key to creating new thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for the next generation. if government abandons this role in r&d, we run the real risk of squandering many, many opportunities. oftentimes government can support and advance initial research that's then developed by the private sector. government can plant the seeds often with modest investments relative to the long-term play payoffs to new jobs and

economic growth. government has tough economic roles. we have to make wise investles that can lead to so many innovative discoveries and so much in economic benefits. last thursday, speaker boehner said, and i quote, everything's on the table, we're broke, let's be honest with ourselves. but the pentagon in this c.r. gets 99% of what they ask for. now, defense spending makes up for more than half of our discretionary budget. a nondefense discretionary spending in this bill, in this c.r. is enduring brutal cuts. why should defense spending remain so high when all this nondiscretionary spending including r&d is cut so severely. it simply makes no sense. i would say, madam speaker, this is really all about priorities. the republicans clearly have the wrong priority. we're not making investments in the future and not creating jobs. they're not creating an

environment where people can be educated for new jobs and be trained for new jobs. they simply have the wrong priorities here with their spending cuts and i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin rise? >> i would like to strike the last word and revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to offer my strong support for the lowey amendment had which would restore $318 million in title 10 and i rise to vehemently oppose the continuing resolution which completely eliminates title 10 funding. title 10 funding provides low-income funding for women with access to contraceptive services but also provides coverage for primary care services and prevention

services from cancer. h.i.v. testing, screenings for high bloop, diabetes, anemia, pregnancy testing, health education and referral for other services. ms. moore: it has nothing to do with abortion. title 10, of course, prohibits recipients to not expend these moneys for abortions. madam chair, i find this c.r. particularly troubling because i know that the overwhelming majority of title 10 patients are very, very poor. in fact, 70% of these patients have incomes at or below the federal poverty level. meaning that they earn less than $10,830 a year. 92% have incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level, meaning they have less than $27,075 a year.

you know what, we begrudge these patients, temporary assistance to needy families, so that if they would become pregnant and have an unintended pregnancy, we would call them welfare queens and begrudge them welfare benefits, and these patients who are disproportionately poor, women of color, would not be able to receive the economic support they need and with this cruel continuing resolution would not be able to receive the primary care that they deserve and that they need. we talk about the need to have jobs in this tough economic time. how can women who have no family planning dollars sustain a job, get a job when there are

unplanned pregnancies? as a co-chair of the women's congressional caucus, i want to take a final moment to note that access to family planning services has been nothing short of revolutionary for women in the united states. women's ability to control their own reproductive destiny has changed the landscape at home, at work, and in the community. it's fundamentally altered women's role in society and researchers tell us it's helped to decrease infant mortality, child mortality, and maternal death. these are all incredibly worthy goals, both for women, men, and families. we've heard the cry of those who want our country back. we've heard the cries of those who want limited government. we've heard the cries of those who want to cut spending. well, i say we want our bodies

back. we want to govern our destinies and we want to cut suspending our choices. so, therefore, i urge all of you to join me in supporting congresswoman nita lowey's amendment to restore title 10 funding, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? 3 >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. -- the gentlewoman is is recognized for five minutes. ms. chu: i rise to support nita lowey's amendment. at a time we need to come together to work on the economy, instead the republicans are focusing on bills attacking women's health. the slashing of the plan isn't about federal planning but about undermining women. this bill is an unprecedented display of disrespect for

american women and shows no concern for their health. and all this raises a key question, isn't the republican's real goal here just to end women's access to birth control? preventing unintended pregnancies and thus the need for abortion should be a goal on which both pro-choice and anti-choice lawmakers should agree. but the republican's anti-woman continuing resolution includes language that dismantles federal funding for family planning, attacks successful organizations that provide critical women's health care, and jeopardizes women's access to affordable birthday control. now, this is a program that affects real people and these drastic cuts will only hurt american women when they need help paying for these basic services the most. title 10 funding helped shania,

a woman who received care at planned parenthood in los angeles. she learned a terrible lesson when her mother broke her hip, was brought to the hospital and then was discovered to have stage 5 cervical cancer, too late for a cure. but thanks to planned parenthood, her daughter is with us today because after learning about her mother's illness, doctors urged shania to get checked for the same disease, unemployed and without health insurance, she couldn't afford to go to a regular doctor. instead, she walked into a back clinic who indeed did the testing and found her cervical cancer early enough to save her life. title 10 funding helped beth, a volunteer soldier in our military who has put her life on the line for our country. but in the military, they do not provide family planning services for our hard-working service women, forcing them to look elsewhere for the care they need and deserve. when beth needed help, planned

parenthood and title 10 funding was there for her even when the military wasn't. and she was able to get the help she needed for birth control. this federal money is a critical health care safety net for women around the country. it's helped improve the quality of women's health, given women free choice, and saved lives. what will republicans tell shania when she can no longer get the life-saving checkups she needs? what will they tell beth when she no longer has access to her reproductive choices despite serving her country? it is clear that the real republican agenda is to roll out women's health and steal away their rights. this congress and this bill should be about creating jobs, not attacking american women. instead of working on the economy, republicans are working to limit women's choices. instead of doing the bidding of

ideological extremists, let's address the true needs of the american people. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to offer amendment 111 preprinted in the congressional record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. will the gentleman specify the number of his amendment? >> amendment 111.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 111 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. barletta.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barletta: i understand the time has come for the government to tighten its belt and i accept the fact that painful decisions must be made in order to get our economy on the right track. however, it is my belief that we have a responsibility to conduct our due diligence before defunding some of our most important programs. . my district in pennsylvania, that includes a thorough examination of alternatives to any cuts in clean coal technology research. according to the national mining association, 52,000 citizens of

pennsylvania are dependent on the coal industry for their jobs, jobs that may be put in danger without an jefment in the future. and as the recent events overseas have demonstrated, we no longer have the luxury of time when it comes to our energy independence. while clean coal research will prepare us for the future, the low-income home energy assistance program. last year liheap provided help to 545,000 families in our country and with the unemployment rate that is held at 9% for 21 consecutive months, we must remember that the cuts we debate here today will have a drastic effect on families who are already struggling to make ends meet. the same can be said for the community service employment for older americans, in 2008, this

program helped nearly 90,000 older americans prepare for the next phase of their careers. even assisting in their placement in the work force. seniors constitute 16.5% of my district's population and given the current nature of our economy, many of these hard-working men and women will be forced to prepare for changes in their future. and as a former mayor, madam speaker, i understand how the community development fund is to supporting our local communities. it serves as a critical lifeline to towns, cities and communities that have already -- are already struggling to pay their most basic bills. it also supports revitalization programs in our communities and assist communities that have fallen victim to disasters. and in a similar vein, state and

local law enforcement assistance helps to keep our communities and neighborhoods safe. in particular, it supports communities who are forced to incarcerate illegal aliens for extended periods of time as well as programs that strive to protect our borders. madam speaker, i understand that we're broke, that programs such as those i have listed here today will be forced to bear the brunt of our new economic reality, yet i stand here to reiterate my support of these important programs and to remind my colleagues to remain ever cognizant of the fact that our cuts are again both necessary and painful. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hanabusa: i move to strike the last word. i rise in strong support of the -- ms. hirono: i rise in support of the lowey amendment. these cuts are a threat to women's health as you have heard from so many of the previous speakers. these cuts will prevent planned parenthood from needing needed funds. the cuts target the most vulnerable among us, the poor, children, young adults and women. we are a diverse country with good people on both sides of the issue including abortion. we know that title 10 funds strikes at a fafrlte target of the anti-choice group, planned parenthood. sadly in pursuing their anti-choice agenda, tens of thousands of women will be

denied health care services that have absolutely nothing to do with abortions. the vast majority of planned parenthood medical services are related to contraception, testing and treatment from sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening and other services like pregnancy tests and infertility treatments. abortions comprise 3% of the medical care planned parenthood provides. it is important to point out that there are no known violations of this law. i would like to share with this body my views of how planned parenthood of hawaii has helped women and families. in hawaii, there are three centers, one in oahua on the island of hawaii. together, these three centers

serve over 7,800 patients and provided cervical screenings and detected 321 abnormal results that required further diagnosis and treatment. this represents lives saved. they provided 2 2005 breast examples and tests for clamidia and resulted in 172 positive results and follow-up treatments. by cutting funding for title 10 family planning, one center may have to close its doors. it is one of the dedicated sexual and reproductive health clinics on that island and the other two would be forced to cut their clinic hours. cutting funds eliminates family planning services and life

saving care to three million americans every year. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 1 and i join with the women of this country, we need to take our bodies back. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. davis: i move to strike the last word. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1, which cuts the heart out of safety net programs which sustain and help sustain the most economically challenged and most vulnerable individuals and families in our society. of particular concern to me are the maternal and child health programs, community development block grants, cuts to legal assistance services, education and training, the low-income

energy assistance program known as liheap and others which sustain the most vulnerable, the most disadvantaged, the most disjointed and in many instances, the most helpless and most hopeless members of our society. i'm obviously concerned about health services in a real sense, because if you have all of these other problems and then you're sick on top of it and have no way of taking care of yourself, then you have no way of addressing the other needs that you have. i have been involved with health services for more than 40 years. and i have had a good look at what we call community health centers, which have become to me the most effective way of providing quality health care to large numbers of low-income

people in this country. and when we talk about cutting over $1 billion to community health centers, we're talking about ending funding for 127 new centers in underserved areas across the country. it means ending funding of increased demand for i.b.s. grants, which have allowed health centers to expand to serve 3.3 million new patients in the last year and-a-half. these cuts would raise cuts in the medicaid program and overall general health care services to the country. as a result, patients would lose access to primary care, to a regular doctor and seek care for nonemergency health situations by using hospital emergency rooms, which would cost the country billions of dollars and

continue to increase high costs health care to our economy. if these cuts go through, it would have an effect to the states who are cutting $90 million in financial support to health centers due to their own fiscal crisis. therefore leaving health centers with no way to continue to serve their existing patients. community health centers provide high quality health care and they do it cost effectively and efficiently. in the state of illinois, in 2008, 40 of these centers operated over 350 sites, contributed almost $1 billion to the illinois economy and directly employed almost 6,000 individuals. for every 10 people employed by an illinois health center, an

additional four jobs were created in their surrounding communities. these programs served over 1.1 million patients, nearly 80% of whom all fell below the federal poverty level and 30% who had no health insurance at all. without these cuts, these centers can continue to operate and provide services. i say let's not be what my mother used to call penny wise and pound foolish. it might look like we're saving, but every time we take care of one's health, we're making an investment. i urge that we reject these cuts. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. holt: madam chair, i rise in support of the amendment that ms. lowey presented and in opposition to this continuing resolution, which would completely eliminate the national women's health and family planning programs known as title 10. the resolution we are considering would cut care to americans who need it most. title 10 funds ensure that millions of low-income and uninsured individuals have access to primary health care. for most of these individuals, this is the only medical care they receive. without access to this health care, they are at risk of developing serious medical conditions. if title 10 funding is eliminated, it would remove the only access point to primary health care for millions of women and would increase the health care costs for all americans. now some of my colleagues would argue that title 10 is all about abortion.

that statement is simply not true. these programs fund prevention, provides lifesaving care to millions of women each year, cancer detection, care provided, women and families treated with the dignity they deserve and it is family planning. i know these claims and i know the work of these clinics. and they are important to our society. maybe the men who put together this continuing resolution don't know what these programs do. i assure you i do. cutting funding to these programs would be devastating for women's health and i strongly oppose efforts to do so. these programs prevent an estimated one million unintended presenting nancies each year. for every dollar spent on family planning, dollars are saved in

medicaid costs. these clinics provide lifesaving care to millions of women. in 2009, providers performed millions of pap tests, millions of breast exams, over six million tests for sexually transmitted infections and h.i.v. tests. it is estimated that the elimination of these programs would cause 40,000 patients to lose health care. without these funds, 14 community health centers would close their doors. we need to take a careful look at who we hurt by cutting these programs. in 2009, these funded health centers provided services to over 135,000 patients. eliminating national family planning programs would result in millions of women across the

country losing access to primary care and preventive health care. can't emphasize that too strongly. simply put, without these programs, more women will experience unintended pregnancies and face other disses that could have been prevented -- diseases that could have been prevented. this is unacceptable and i yield back. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i support mrs. lowey's amendment. i want to convey my strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana preventing planned parenthood from receiving federal funds, including any funds for cervical or breast cancer screening. these draconian proposals will end preventative and primary

care for millions of american women. primary care services that for so many women are the only care they receive throughout the year. in fact, 6-10 women who access care from a planning center consider it to be their main source of health care. ms. sutton: what we're seeing here today is nothing less than an attack on access to women's health services and the real impact of these cuts is that five million women across this country will lose access to basic primary and preventative care services. let's be clear, planned parenthood does offer needed planning services and they also offer preventative health care services. in 2009 in the state of ohio, planned parenthood served 97,574 patients by providing primary health services like cervical and breast cancer screenings, birth control, along with general services

including smoking cessation, flu vaccinations and screenings for diabetes and anemia. planned parenthood in ohio provided 32,532 cervical cancer screenings in 2009. planned parenthood in ohio provided 32,717 breast exams in 2009. 32,717 women given peace of mind that they are free from cancer or put on the pap for necessary -- path for necessary treatment for cancer. 32,717 women given access to critical care services that each and every woman needs. from the cuts to women, infant and children programs to these cuts targeted at women's health care, a pattern is quickly emerging, and it's unacceptable. it shows a disregard for women's health and safety.

rather than jeopardize the health of women and children across our country, rather than cutting heating assistance for those with low-income, rather than cutting funding for community health centers that help our most vulnerable, rather than cutting community development block grant funding that helps with economic development and job creation. this congress can cut things like billions of dollars out of oil subsidies that go right to the profits of those oil companies. we can require the negotiation of lower drug prices to benefit our seniors and the bottom line. and we as a congress should focus rather than on these draconian cuts to jeopardize the health of women and children, we should focus on job number one and that is making investments in helping americans get back to work.

we need to be working to strengthen u.s. manufacturing, rebuilding our infrastructure, and stopping the outsourcing of american jobs. i urge my colleagues to join us in these efforts. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i rise to a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman from will state his inquiry. >> for over an hour we've been hearing people say, we rise in support of this amendment speaker after speaker after speaker. so my parliamentary inquiry is, is there an amendment before the floor right now? the chair: no. >> mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: i stand strongly in support of congresswoman lowey and her amendment and

title 10 and its protections for women and families. what a shame we're here tonight defending a woman's reproductive rights. defending a woman's right to make choices that work for her, that work for her family, that work for their future. instead, we should be debating how we can get our economy going, how to provide jobs. instead, we're defending a woman's right to control her body, her right to good health care, her right to prevent a pregnancy, and her right to end a pregnancy. this, my friends, is the 21st century. we are not in the middle ages. it is time to respect women and to respect their choices. and it is pastime to begin creating jobs here in the united states of america. i yield back.

the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 293, line 16, section 1818, the level for department of health and human services administration for children and families, for childcare and development block grants, $2,081,081,000. section 1819, the level for department of health and human services, administration for children and families, children and family services programs, $7,796,499,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

>> what paragraph are we on? the chair: we are on section 1819 on page 293. >> thank you. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 371 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flake of arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, this is the amendment preprinted in the record numbered 457. the chair: amendment 475 -- amendment 457. mr. flake: yes.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 457 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would reduce the administration for children and families programs by $100 million with a reduction specifically targeting the community service block grant program. under this amendment the reduction would be transferred to the savings reduction account and save the taxpayers $100 million. the agency has spent $295 million on this program for fiscal year 2011. this amount of money is already out the door and an authorization requiring $10 million to be spent on discretionary activities is already out, but this amendment would essentially zero out funding for grants for the remainder of the fiscal year. the program is administered through the department of health and human services and provides federal funds to states, territories and tribes for distribution to local

agencies to support a wide-range of community-based activities. this program has been flagged previously for its lack of accountability and oversight with the use of taxpayer dollars. in 2006, the g.a.o. was asked to review the administration of the community service block grant program, and g.a.o. indicated in a letter to the assistant secretary for children and families on february 7, 2006, that, quote, the office of community services does not have the policies, procedures, and internal controls in place needed to carry out its monitoring efforts. later, g.a.o. writes, quote, by sending staff without sufficient expertise in financial management on monitoring visits, the office of community service has failed to ensure that states spend federal dollars appropriately. we have a projected deficit, as we've said many times today, $1.5 trillion this year alone. sobering reports of the national debt may soon exceed our annual g.d.p. simply put, the federal

government does not have the resources to fund every grant program, particularly one that has little accountability over how taxpayer dollars are spent. beyond issues related to oversight, there have been concerns related to effectiveness of taxpayer dollars spent under this program. in a "new york times" article published february 5, the white house office of management and budget, jacob lew, wrote about the program stating, quote, for the past 30 years these grants have been allocated using a formula that does not consider how good a job the recipients are doing. in fact, presumably for this reason, president obama cut funding for community service block grant -- for the program by 50% in his fy-2012 budget why. -- budget request. let me say that again, the president for the fq-2012 budget has cut this program in half from $700 billion to $350 billion and i suppose it's likely because of these

problems. he defended this reduction by saying cspg provides funding for the important work of the community service agencies, but does not hold these agencies accountable for outcomes. on november 2, the taxpayers sent a clear message to all of us here to spend money more wisely. as i mentioned, we are -- we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. so when you have programs that we're told by g.a.o. and other groups that simply aren't using taxpayer dollars wisely, it behooves us to cut the funding. if we don't cut this funding, we'll actually be funding this program the a greater level than the president is asking for. so let me repeat that. unless we do this cut we're talking about today, we'll be funding for fy-2011, this program, at a greater level than the president is requesting for the following year. i think that we ought to move

now when we have a deficit of $1.5 trillion and a debt nearing $14 trillion, to save money where we can for the taxpayer. i yield back the balance of my time. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. flake: i yielded back my time. the chair: does the gentleman retain his time? mr. flake: i don't believe i can. the chair: the the gentleman ask unanimous consent? mr. flake: i'll ask. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: yes, go ahead. >> i wanted to ask the gentleman a question. has the gentleman given a consideration to what the impact of this federal cut is on state programs and the likelihood that states are to follow suit after the enactment of his proposed amendment? mr. flake: i think any impact that there is dwarfed by the impact of having a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion debt and what happens to us as a country if we continue to run that kind of

deficit and debt. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? >> to seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to the flake amendment. there isn't any question democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. we believe we should start by ending the tax subsidies and special interest waste. we also must make sure that programs are accountable and end those that do not work. but what we have here is a program that serves as nothing short of a lifeline. it provides assistance to our nation's poorest families. families that are trying to meet the most basic of human needs. we have the latest census data that says 43.7 million people

are living in poverty in the united states. the number is growing. a striking point is that many in this category are hard-working americans who had in fact been making it. some may refer to them now as the new poor. in this great recession, life has changed very quickly for so many american families who first lose their job and then they lose their home. the majority of americans served by this program can be described as extremely poor with incomes below 75% of the federal poverty threshold. that's $9,735 for a family of three. that's the average. $9,735. is that what we make in this institution here, $9,735?

mr. chairman, we'd be hard-pressed to find a corner of our nation that doesn't feel the impact of these severe cuts. the service area of community action agencies cover 96% of the nation's counties. i just might with this body not so long voted for a tax increase for the richest 2% in this nation providing them with $100,000 in a tax cut. the richest 2% of the people in this country, as opposed to people who make $9,735. now if we want to be serious about that deficit, let's start with several items that we ought to start with first. let's go to the oil subsidies. $40 billion over five years and eliminate 10 tax breaks for the oil companies. let's start there. let's start there. or what about ending what they

call treaty shopping, $7.4 billion savings over 10 years and shut down the current practice that lets multinationals to avoid paying taxes. that's a good idea. that is un-american that they aren't going to pay their taxes. why don't we cut agricultural subsidies in half and save $8 billion, we can do that. $3 billion if we end the licensing agreements in which pharmaceutical companies pay competitors to slow generic drugs and that raises health care for all of us and save $300 billion if we stop spending on the alternate. those total $61 billion, which is the size of the cuts that the other side of this of the house

has proposed we cut k-12 education for the neediest people of this nation, national institutes of health that provide the opportunity to look for ground-breaking discoveries to cure diseases. this is one should be opposed to this amendment to what it would do to the most vulnerable people in this nation. it is effectively 100% cut and it is again, the example of how the republican resolution hits those who can't -- who can afford it least and to do in with 9% unemployment in our country. this is not the time to be cutting critical services. this is services in local communities to help local-income families get on their feet. the issues are child care, job training, nutrition. the money goes to nonprofit

agencies, boys and girls clubs, habitat for humanity, feeding america, hundreds of local faith-based churches and synagogues, united way, brothers and big sisters. and i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the requisite words. mr. dicks: the community services block grant program provides grants to states to combat poverty to increase services and the funding directed to community organizers in poor neighborhoods. the range of services provide including emergency services, housing, health care, food and nutrition, economic development and education. states award the funds to community action agencies.

i have several of them in my congressional district, which are nonprofit, public and private organizations established under the economic opportunity act of 1964 and today, there are approximately 1,000 community-action agencies serving the poor in every state. now i know the gentleman from arizona is basing part of his cut on what is in the president's budget. well, from my perspective, the president's budget is wrong on this subject. to cut this program in half and then say we are going to have competitive bidding for the other half is going to hurt thousands, if not millions of poor people in this country. it is not the right thing to do. this is shredding the safety net and this last 100 million because so much of this money has been spent this year, would take this program down to zero. it would be a disaster and all

of the agencies would have to close. the poor people would not have any place to go to get help. so i just think -- i just think it is terrible that we have finally gotten down where we have -- we are going to go after the community services block grants to help the poorest people in each of our districts around the country. it's indefensible. it's just not right. and i hope the gentleman from arizona will reconsider this amendment. i would hope the committee consider this in conference committee. i think the body should not embrace this. this is a bad cut and going to help the poorest -- go to go hurt the poorest people in this country. >> i move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in strong support of the lowey amendment. i rise in strong opposition to the flake amendment. mr. jackson: >> and i want to begin by saying, my friend, mr. flake from arizona is a very nice man, decent man, but just dead wrong on this. he's just wrong, wrong, wrong. before i get into the specifics of the amendment, i want to highlight the deep cuts my friends on the other side of the aisle want to make to the health and human services and education. this funds the department of health and human services and education but programs that mike vital investments in people. that's why the labor h. bill is referred to as the people's bill and provides resources to train people for jobs, offers educational opportunities in early, secondary and higher education and it expands social safety net programs to millions of americans that need temporary

assistance. while some of my colleagues will argue that with our growing budget deficit and growing levels of spending, we need to make some cuts and we must by targeting unnecessary spending. the legislation that has been brought to the floor by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle weckens the safety net amongst the vulnerable, children, seniors and the poor. i have been listening to the debate for a couple of hours now and as we get later into the night, i remind my friends these aren't about dollar amounts and percentage cuts but cuts to real people. i think some of us often forget that. the federal government cuts these programs. without matching funds available from the federal government, states then cut the exact same programs. and suddenly millions of americans wake up without the federal government or without

the state government providing them with any assistance. this isn't just about the federal deficit and the federal budget. the ramifications of this cut spiral, trickle all the way down to the states and the ramifications for states in debtedness continues to grow. on the department of labor, my friends on the other side of aisle are supporting cuts to dislocated workers, unemployed at a time when the unemployment rate remains at historic 9%. nearly 14 million americans. that number is even higher. this is a 40% cut to programs that help unemployed people get out of the unemployment office and get their feet in the door. from health and human services, this legislation cuts $1 billion for 1,250 community health centers. that does not include the ramifications of states that are not likely to sfund the exact

same health centers. they serve nearly 20 million low-income individuals by providing access to dental and preventative care. the $1.8 billion cut from the head start program will threaten jobs to teachers and aides and cut off access to 200,000 low-income children across this children. $694 million will be cut from grants to students, teachers, tutors, teacher aides are likely to lose their jobs. and the students that need the help the most will suffer. cuts will be from special education programs that serve children with disabilities. as the cost of tuition, textbooks and expenses continue to rise, 8 million students in colleges and universities that benefit from pell grants will no longer be able to receive the current maximum award of $5,550

ayear. they believe $4,705 is adequate. i could go on. with the cuts my colleagues plan to make but the fact is that this legislation in front of us provides cuts to people in this country that can least afford it. these devastating cuts to health care, to education, to energy, to energy assistance and other programs means the most vulnerable americans will be left to fend for themselves in the midst of the worst economy of our lifetime. mr. chairman, i recommend my colleagues vote against the amendment that further cut any of these vital programs for americans and vote against this irresponsible continuing resolution. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

>> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, members of the house, the spending bill the republicans have introduced is a threat to our economy and competitiveness and america's working families and with this amendment, a threat to america's poor. no one is in favor of wasteful spending or outdated government regulations that don't work or special spending for the powerful and the special interests. instead of identifying real governmental waste like subsidies to big oil and tax cuts to billionaires, the house republicans have decided the cuts will fall on the working people, poor and students. the cuts will be to those parts of our population, most vulnerable parts of our population, those who struggle every day to keep their jobs to provide for their families, hold on to their homes or catch a break and get a job or maybe catch a break and have their child in head start or mental

health services for a member of their family. they deny workers the basic rights and protections in the job and prevent unemployed americans from getting job training that will give them a leg up because they zero out these programs. the republicans' spending bill eliminates hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of thousands of job opportunities for americans who are seeking to get back into the economy. this bill is reckless and irresponsible. the programs that are targeted are a lifeline to the future of our economy. this -- these cuts mean over 200,000 young children will lose spots in head start classrooms. for the first time we celebrate the 100th birthday of ronald reagan, we destroy ron and nancy's favorite program. they will not be allowed into the head start classroom and we know what that means. they will start school behind and if they graduate they'll graduate behind. that's what we cast them into.

that's why it's called help head start. these quarter of a million children will not get a head start but to the back of the line. it means that parents will have to choose between going to work and putting their children in low quality child care without an option for the head start classes. 2,400 disadvantaged schools that rely on title i funding will lose the funding for teachers and tutors and after-school programs and the children who start without the head start, the children who are the poorest in our nation, they will receive the least resources available if they can get a good quality education. these cuts mean reduced support for children with disabilities and 7,000 special education teachers and staff unemployed and the services that those students need and can prosper when they are given in our education programs and thrive in

regular education programs and will be denied. as has been mentioned, 845 that would have been available for the poorest students, middle-income students that are starting colleges, four-year college, that money won't be available for them. mind you, the cost in the community colleges and the cost of the public institutions, four-year institutions, they are all going up. these students resources to pay for college are going down and many of these students do not have the ability to pay for those resources. by eliminating the corporation for national community services, we break the great bipartisan compact that we would join together to provide people the opportunity to give back to this nation, give organizations to our community whether they be senior citizens or young people starting out and people could earn an opportunity by serving their community to earn a

scholarship and grandparents could earn a scholarship if they gave back to their community and volunteered. those programs are gone, they are eliminated and zeroed out. by eliminating critical job training opportunities, some 200,000 unemployed americans who need the skills to compete in the workplace will be denied their services as will be the returning vets who use the one-stop services, 3,000 of them gone in april, closed down because of the budget cuts here. where will the veterans go? they are seeking opportunities. are we going to take these veterans who have been harmed and suffered in combat, recovering from their injuries and trying to navigate the employment sector, they can go to a one-stop shop and see the array of opportunities they might have to bring to them. but now they can crews the community and go place to place trying to find together the

services that are available today in the one-stop centers. this legislation is devastating, devastating to millions of americans, millions of americans that need help who would be able to engage in our economy, our society and be able to prosper for themselves and families. the republicans foreclose that future and foreclose that future for millions of americans and will not be able to fight back. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. and to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> as 15 million people are unemployed in this country, as people are losing their homes, losing their businesses, the majority has focused like a

laser beam on everything except job creation for the american people. mr. andrews: they have found time to dabble in a variety of political issues while ignoring the essential purpose for which i believe we were all sent here, which is to foster an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for this country. this week they have changed. they have gone from ignoring the jobs problem to making it worse. the legislation that's on the floor tonight does reflect a good faith and necessary goal of reducing spending in our country. i don't think there's anyone here who would disagree with the proposition that continuing to spend more than we take in eventually will cause even greater pain and harm to the

u.s. economy than it's already caused, which is considerable indeed. but all spending cuts are not created equally. and all spending decisions don't have the same consequences. and the prism through which we have to look at spending cuts is whether they are sensible or reckless. whether they help to create jobs or destroy jobs. and i would submit, ladies and gentlemen of the house, that the legislation before us is worsening the very deep economic crisis in our country in three ways. first of all, you can't have economic growth if you don't have safe streets and a safe country. but the provisions of this bill will lead to the layoff of more than 10,000 police officers in cities and towns across our country. the provisions of this bill will lead to the dismissal or

furlough of over 1,000 people whose job it is to check containers coming into this country to see if they have dirty bombs or chemical weapons in them. a country that isn't safe won't grow. ladies and gentlemen, the other cuts in this bill talk about education, a country that can't learn won't grow, but this legislation will result in the elimination of 10,000 reading tutors and math coaches for the neediest students in this country. it will remove 7,000 teachers who teach autistic kids, children with a learning disability from classrooms. for the single mom who is struggling to pay her bills, raise her children and go to school, it will raise her tuition by up to $825 this year

by eliminating the college scholarship on which she relies to go to school. a country that doesn't learn doesn't grow. and these cuts will leave us with a country that makes it very difficult in which to learn. and finally, this country is fueled by research and development, inventing and creating new products, new cures, new solutions to the world's problems. yet in this bill in one of the most important areas, medical research, the majority has given us an unwelcomed surprise. there is a spending cut in excess of $600 million in the national institute of health that is described, ladies and gentlemen, as further cuts to get to the 2008 levels. i don't know what that means. i don't think anyone on the

majority side will tell us what that means. but i do know this, thousands of americans work doing medical research through the national institutes of health. millions of americans depend upon the miracles which grow out of that research, and this country's economy is stronger when that research continues. that research will be cut. the average cancer research grant in this country is about $500,000. looking at the cut in here, it appears that over 500 cancer research grants will go by the wayside. a country that isn't safe, a country that isn't learning and investing won't grow. this bill means america won't grow. this bill should be defeated. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. as many are as in favor will

signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. plake: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 , further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 294, line 12, section 1820, the level for department of health and human services, the administration on aging, aging services program, $1,445,323,000. section 1821, the level for department of health and human services, office of the secretary, general departmental management, $375,938,000. section 1822, the level for department of health and human services, office of the secretary, public health and social services emergency fund,

$708, 510,000. section 1823, funds available for department of health and human services, office of the secretary, public health and social services emergency fund and public law 111-32, $1,397,439,000 is rescinded. section 1824, the level for department of education -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment 276. the chair: the clerk will first repeat the reading of the section. the clerk: the level for department of education, education for the disadvantaged. $3,994,365,000 of which $3, 944,535,000 shall become available on july 1, 2011. the chair: the gentlelady from washington. >> thank you.

my amendment is simple. the chair: does the gentlelady offer an amendment? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment 276 presented in the congressional record offered by ms. mcmorris rogers of washington. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. rodgers: it increases funding for idea which increases educational grants to children with disabilities and increases by $557 million, restoring funding for the program to 2010 levels. the amendment is fully offset by reducing funding to the teacher quality state grant program and the school improvement grant program, two programs that have received substantial funding increases since 2009. 35 years ago, congress recognized too many special needs children are being denied an education and opportunity to maximize their potential and contribution to our society. 35 years ago severely disabled children who were confined to

state institutions received no education. special needs students did not attend schools. they were kept out of classrooms receiving little education. came more than -- today more than six million children receive an effective education because of idea. special needs children are no longer confined to institutions. the number of special needs students who graduate from high school with a diploma has increased. the number of children who go on to enroll in high school has more than tripled since idea's enactment. and through idea, we have increased our nation's expectations of our children. but more can and must be done. the mcmorris rodgers-klein-session-harper amendment ensures congress keeps its promise. too often idea is overlooked in our education debates. for example, congress has yet to meet its commitment to cover 40% of a students' cost. reliable research prevents teaching and row expectations continue to plague our school systems. the lucks to idea in h.r. 1 are another example of challenges

idea experiences. this amendment reaffirms there's no greater priority in congress than ensuring all children have an access -- have access to appropriate education. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this amendment. providing a quality education for all students, including those with disabilities should be one of our highest priorities. so i agree with the goal of this amendment, but in fact, we are considering a republican resolution. this continuing resolution this evening. and it's the majority party to which the gentlewoman belongs

which cuts idea it cuts special education by $558 million. so now we have an amendment that attempts to undo the damaging cuts to idea but only by cutting other critical education programs. the damage done in this bill to not be alleviated by robbing peter to pay paul. that's what this amendment is about. let me just mention to you that -- and our colleagues spoke about special education and what it does. but $558 million is where they come from with regard to education for special needs kids. what that means is almost 7,000 special education teachers and

aides and other staff who serve these youngsters would not be there. and it is critical. teachers and staff are critical. to the education of these youngsters. as a matter of fact, the federal government mandates that local school districts have to provide this education, and it -- when it was determined that would be the case, it said the states would do 60%, the federal government would do 40%. what's happened now is that we've been at about 17% in terms of the federal contribution with the $558 million cut, we go down to about 15%. i would suggest that if there is such a great urgent need and a great burning desire to be able to provide education to special needs children, that we do not cut $558 million. now, where does the money come

from? as i mentioned, we're talking about other critical education programs. school improvement grants. i venture to say that everybody is considered about -- is concerned about those schools that are failing. that there's got to be student achievement at these schools, and that's what the current federal law requires, that there's demonstrable success in students achieving. the funds for the school improvement grant are appropriated precisely for those schools who failed the tests and are seeking to implement a strategy for turning around our nation's lowest performing schools. that's where we would take money from in order to turn a potentially failing school to turn around so they go from the lowest performing to a better performing school. the other place that my colleague takes funds from is something called the teacher

quality grants. approximate $3 billion program and a major piece of no child left behind. this provides funds to states in school districts that develop and support a high quality teacher force. aren't we all about making sure that those people who teach our children are qualified to do that? these funds are distributed by formula to all states. they are relied upon tremendously to reduce class size, to ensure that classroom teachers have the proper training and credentials to be effective instructors. . we have to develop quality teachers and we want to link

merit pay to quality teachers. but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to take the money for school improvement grants, teacher quality grants. i suggest to you what you do if you are interested in educating special needs children that you decide that a $558 million cut is just not the right thing to do. to children who have these special needs and who are mandated by the federal government to get the kind of training they need to achieve their level and realize their dreams and aspirations. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield to the chairman. >> we have no objection to the amendment and i intend to vote for the amendment and i yield back. >> thank the gentleman for

yielding back. budgeting is about making tough choices. congress has the responsibility to outline a budget the country can afford. too often congress failed in this basic duty. i'm pleased to see us beginning to move in a new direction. the choice we face today is whether we will begin to uphold our commitments or continue to kick the can down the road for another debate another time. that's why i'm proud to support this amendment. this will move us closer to meeting its commitments to students with disabilities and help all schools across the nation. it adds to our effort to set the right priorities. mr. kline: in 1971, a landmark decision was handed down by a federal judge that the u.s. constitution prohibits schools for denying access to education based on a child's disability. while this represented the judgment of one court, states followed. four years later, congress

peaced the education for all handicapped children act. that is the disabilities in education act was designed to help states meet their olings to provide a quality education to students with disabilities. it is a law that has been improved over the years. most recently in 2004. we have worked to strengthen the law's focus on academic achievement and empower parents to take responsibility for the direction of their child's education and improve the critical relationship between local school leaders and parents and students they serve. despite our efforts over the years, more work remains to strengthen the law to ensure students with disabilities receive the education they need. that's why we are here today. over the past 35 years while states have worked to follow the letter of the law and serve these students, the federal government has failed to deliver on its promise to fund 40% of the additional costs of educating students with disabilities. we have never funded 20%.

we haven't made it halfway. this amendment reallocates resources at the department of education to improve our commitment to meet this important need. it makes tough choices we were sent here to make. i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i strongly oppose this amendment. the suggestion has been made by the chairman of my committee to somehow voting for this amendment you are increasing the government's amendment to fully fund idea. no you're not. you are restoring the cut that the republican caucus already made a decision about and that was to cut $558 million. that would be admirable to restore the cut but when you decide to restore the cut, you

are going to have to make additional cuts and they will come out of the most difficult most failing schools in our country, many with increase population of children with disabilities, that those will be the schools that we will target. we will target those schools in the poorest neighborhoods with the poorest record who now for the first time we have a proposal made carried out by the governors, carried out by local school districts to turn the schools around and provide the quality education that those children are entitled to so they can take advantage of the opportunities that america presents. money for those schools is going to be taken away on the theory that somehow you are doing a favor with students for disabilities. don't do them such a favor. i don't think they would appreciate that you are taking the money from their poorest neighbors. on top of that you rbg go to take the funds and given the speeches and told people the most important thing outside of

the family is the teacher. this is the funding by which we prepare teachers to be special education teachers, title i teachers to teach math and science and now we are going to take that money that somehow this is an amendment that is good for idea. let us understand something. when we were doing no child left behind we circulated a petition signed by republicans and democrats and 00 people said let's go for full funding. when we offered that amendment in the conference committee, the republicans members voted it down. you signed the petition. you just didn't have the courage to stand up and put the funding into play and you have been screwing around with this program ever since. you are trying to use idea, funding for idea to batter some other portion of the education community. little incrementals were offered year after year but came out of the hide of the less fortunate. you ought to stop it. you ought to stop it.

more children need access to high quality education and students with disabilities need abbling need access to education. and the kind of attitude that is being carried out here in terms of playing these two populations off against one another is simply outrageous and unfair to the students with disabilities because it's being done in their name and we know how desperate they and their families are for education and for the resources to carry that out. and in their name, we are stripping resources from the poorest children and some of the poorest with disabilities and stripping the resources for them. that doesn't sound like a win-win or a plus for students with disabilities. i have been at this for a long time. i have written this legislation with my colleagues back in 1975 and 1976 and it's an honor and i defended it my whole life and it has changed peoples' lives.

but for that wall, my child would have never had an education, but for that law. i don't think they would have thought we are trading their child's education for somebody to deny another student an education. that's not the game they wanted to play. the chair: the chair reminds members that they should remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. bass: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized. mr. bass: i have great respect from -- for the gentleman from california. i would point from the late 1970's through all of the 1980's, special education funded at 1%, 2, 3% and wasn't until 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,

funding for special education began to increase significantly. president clinton's own education secretary said on a number of different times that funding had to take second place to the new programs that the administration was offering at the time which was school improvement and other programs that my friend is proposing to reduce in order to fund special education. i have felt for many years that idea funding should be the top priority for education funding in the congress and i'm pleased that we have this amendment that will restore funding to the same level that it was in fiscal year 2010 and i would like to have it higher than that but under the circumstances, i believe this is a good and justifiable improvement. it's especially important and it's different from s.i.p. and teacher quality grants because we make the rules when it comes to special education here at the federal level. and the school districts put out

their individual service plans for students, which they have to pay for. so without this amendment and with a cut in funding for special education, it is a direct dollar for dollar cost shift for every school district in america. this amendment is good and bipartisan and should support its passage to get special education funding back to fiscal year 2010 levels. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by gentlelady from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from connecticut. deal ms. delauro: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from washington will be postponed. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: i offer the motion to speak out against the egregious

cuts to public education contained in this irresponsible spending bill. it cuts $1.25 billion in education funding and goes directly to states and school districts to support educating special education students. now is not the time to choke off funding to school districts when stimulus money is eroding and states are cutting their own budgets. we are leaving schools and our most vulnerable students behind. these sections of the irresponsible republican plan represented 5% cut in aid to school districts for title i funding that are school budgets and teacher jobs in low-income school districts and $693. million cut. for individuals with disabilities education act, the idea act, special education funding that supports schools districts and disabilities, this

means a $557.7 million cut. title i funding has helped school districts with high poverty levels meet state education standards and ensure equal access to quality education for all of their students. more than 50,000 public schools around this nation depend on these federal dollars to maintain their educational services. this cut to title i funding alone will affect 2,400 schools that serve one million disadvantaged students. these schools would lose funding for teachers, tutors and after-school programs and nearly 10,000 teachers and aides could lose their jobs, children could see larger class sizes and access to quality education would again be threatend. not only does this bill cut education for low-income children but institutes painful cuts to special education programs funded with the idea dollars. for 35 years, idea has supported

special education, guaranteeing students with disabilities the right, the right to a free, appropriate public education. millions of students with disabilities have been able to go to public schools because of the idea funding, school districts receive, allowing them to provide an individualized education for children with those special needs. this bill cuts over one half of a billion dollars out of special education funding to school districts. cuts of this proportion could force states and school districts to lay off almost 7,000 special education teachers and aides and other staff serving children with disabilities. just last week i met with members of the new york state school board association who advocated for full funding for title 1 and especially for idea and stressed the fact that special education funding has never been fully funded to the amount that was originally promised to our schools.

these cuts are giant steps backwards. after several years of quality investments in title 1 and idea funding. furthermore, these cuts would come at a time when states across this country are also slashing education funding. these cuts come at a time when supplemental stimulus aid is drying up. cuts mean school districts in local communities will have to make up the difference potentially with teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, reduced programs and higher, higher property taxes. this is not responsible policy making, especially while our economy is still in recovery. the majority in this house is lauding the fact that this bill represents the largest spending cut in the history of our country. if they want to cut funding to satisfy their base, fine. but i will not stand for cutting education funding. i will not support budget cuts balanced on the back of our nation' students our youngest