future. mr. chair, i urge defeat of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise in support to add funding back to title 10. and i'm thrilled to join them in this important fight. . it's helped to reduce unintended pregnancies. the cut to the program would take away funding from essential women care providers like planned parenthood. today it serves over five million low-income people every year. women and men. they rely on them for life-saving cancer screenings, contraceptives and screening for sexually transmitted diseases.

in 2009 alone title 1 providers provided over six million tests for sexually transmitted diseases including nearly a million h.i.v. tests. preventative care isn't limbed to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid s.t.d.'s. if republicans truly wanted to stop abortions in this country they would vote for this amendment. title 10 reduces the number of abortions and helps to protect nearly one million unintended pregnancies each year nearly half of which would end in abortion. we're saying for certain title 10 play as vital role in helping reduce the number of abortions in our nation and works towards making abortions safe, legal and rare. it goes further, the title 10 program through priders like planned parenthood provide vital planning services which help improve the life of the mother and the child. it's been proven time and again that family planning keeps women and children healthy. studies have shown when women have better access to family

planning, it leads to healthier programs for mother and child. when women plan their pregnancies, they're more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and health of their children. access to family planning is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality rates. eliminating the national family program will result in millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and preventative health care and for the providers that offer these services. without title 10, more women will experience unintended pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented. in recent weeks, republicans in this congress have produced some of the most anti-choice, anti-woman, cheant family bills we've ever seen, trying to redefine rape, raising taxes on women with private insurance on comprehensive health care coverage. telling women that need our help the most that they are on their own. but that doesn't go far enough for them. republican proposals to cut title 10 funding and completely

shut down planned parenthood where millions of women receive their only health care is one of the most spiteful, egregious moves we've seen. it's truly mind-boggling the same members who purport to be anti-choice can turn around and say in the same breath they want to strike all federal family planning. so now they not only want to make abortions illegal but throw a huge to be stackle in the path of those who want to prevent from ending up in a space they don't want to be. it doesn't help women or families and certainly doesn't help reduce our deficit. that's because title 10 actually saves taxpayer dollars. since many of the patients served on title 10 are on medicaid, preventative care like cancer screenings means future costs to the taxpayers in the long run. indeed for every dollar invested in public planning, $3.74 is saved in medicaid related costs. that is savings to both federal and state governments. mr. chairman, i'm proud to support this amendment from my

good friends that would reinstate title 10 funding in the continuing resolution. the decision by republicans to defund title 10 was not only reckless but thoroughly anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help correct a massive injustice against american women and families. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 297, line 23, section 1825, the level for department of education, school improvement programs, $3,066,967,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? >> i have an amendment printed in the record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 532 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: this will strike the language in h.r. 1 that prohibits the funding for

native hawaiian education program. the amendment will not add money to the education budget but allow the department to fund those programs as they see a need and i yield at this time to the good lady from hawaii for a very short statement. are you ready? i yield to the lady. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ms. hirono: i rise in support of the amendment from my colleague don young to support native hawaiian education and it makes these worthwhile programs eligible for these education funds. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. mr. young: i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i seek time in opposition.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i move to strike the last word. wharme, as i understand the current definition -- mr. chairman, as i understand the current definition of an earmark, the two programs the gentleman is seeking to restore are earmarks, alaska native education and native hawaiian education programs are worthy programs. there's no doubt in my mind. and i believe the overall purpose of both is to ensure that the unique educational needs of alaska and hawaii natives are met. and clearly, we all want the same for our constituents. but i think we have to be clear about what these programs are. they are earmarks. with a price tag that approaches $70 million. now, this majority has been very proud of their policy to ban all earmarks. and if i might, i would like to

just read from the comments of the chair of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, in his summary, fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. and i quote, the continuing resolution include nose earmark funding and eliminates all previous earmark funding from the fiscal year 2010 savings the taxpayers approximate $8.5 billion. in addition, the bill includes language specifically negating any and all earmarks as defined by house rules. that is why -- and again, as i say, this majority has been very, very proud of their policy to ban all earmarks.

really, the decision by my republican colleague from alaska is therefore for me very hard to understand, and the support that the majority is providing for this amendment is hard to understand, but i think it is clear evidence that the status quo remains when it comes to special favors and when it comes to special interests. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield my time to mr. young of alaska. mr. young: i am deeply disappointed for the gentlewoman from connecticut. you voted for it every time. it's not an earmark but existing program. and i heard you rail all night about restoring moneys which are all earmarks. you're dead wrong. the good lady from hawaii --

mr. delauro: i ask to address the chair. mr. young: i'll address the chair but look over there. the chair: i remind members that all remarks should be addressed to the chair. mr. young: all earmarks. i'm going to say respectfully this is an existing program and the reason it was started is because the alaska natives and the hawaiian natives do not receive moneys from the b.i.a. it was started to recognize an inequity of those people that live in both of our states. it's not a new program and this language, as written, is at the discretion of the department. as they see a need. and like i say, i thought we were going to start a little bit of a bipartisan effort on this side. and i don't see it. when those people will take away from some of the most impoverished people that have not had that opportunity.

so i am urging my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and i say those that oppose it, shame on you. i've heard the bleeding hearts all night and it deeply disturbs me they would say this is something different when it's an existing program. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from montana yield back his time. mr. rehberg: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i yield to the distinguished ranking member. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman and i would say to my colleague and friend, i might add, and my friends here, that this is in fact in the same category of a program of teach for america, the national writing project and other projects, just to name a couple, who have been designated by the majority as earmarks. this is the same category of programs.

we cannot be talking about a series of programs on the one hand which are categorized as earmarks and then on the other the same -- in the same breath than, say, these because they are a specific interest to me or anyone else that in fact and they are not. if we are going to be -- if we are going to be -- really, the majority is going to be true -- if the majority is going to be true to its -- mr. young: i'm not getting in this. ms. delauro: its principle and it has been a very, very defined principle. it has been one which i quoted specifically the chairman of the proceedings committee who made a special point of letting not only us but the country know that earmarks were not going to be part of this continuing resolution.

i did not -- i did not say that . i have not stood here and made a claim that the problem with spending in this country is about earmarks and they should all be gone. now, you either have to define the earmarks, stick to your definition and your principle, or don't and then let's talk about teach for america, the writing project, and the others that have been categorized as earmarks. let's have a level playing field. yield back. mr. dicks: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. as maybe are as in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 298, line 20, section 1826, the level for department of education, innovation and improvement, $885,786,000. section 1827, the level for department of education, safe schools and citizenship, education, $191,341,000. section 1828, the level for department of education, special education, $3,414,870,000. section 1829, the level for the department of education, rehabilitation services and disability research, $3,453,388,000. section 1830, the level for department of education, career, technical, and adult education, $1,017,338,000. section 1831, level for

department of education, student financial assistance, $18,475,492,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? the gentlelady from california. >> i rise to offer amendment 490. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 490 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. chu of california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five -- the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: i reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved by the gentleman from montana. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. chu: i rise to strongly support investing in america's future. i rise to present the chu-moore-jackson lee amendment to restore full funding to the pell grant program. with the c.r., the republicans slashed the very funding that

ensures every american has the opportunity to go to college. h.r. 1 does something that is shocking, especially in these tough economic times. it deprives our millions of students of the financial support that they need to go to college. at a time when people are losing jobs, when people can't find jobs, when people are scared about whether they have a future, republicans are cutting pell grant financial aid by 15% for students across the board. . this is an astounding number. if the republicans gut this program, there will be nine million students who will have cuts in their financial aid endangering their ability to go to college. it is the largest cut in student financial aid in history.

this will hit the neediest students hardest. in california, my home state, 1/3 of undergrads, 65,000 students get this money for college and most come from families making less than $30,000 a year. but this is about more than just numbers and statistics. this is about real people, real students, whose real futures are at stake, students like chris hamm who attends the university. within the money, chris doesn't think he will be able to afford school and will be forced to drop out, leaving him few options in this tough economy. today, we know we are no longer in an arms race. today, we are in a brains race. every year, we are falling

further and further behind other countries. fewer americans are getting a college degree compared to those from other countries. we don't have all the science, math and technology talent we need to compete. america's ability to remain competitive in a global modern economy hinges on our ability to encourage and grow a highly educated work force. gutting pell grants in this bill will only compound our future economic challenges and undermine the dream that we have for our young people to join the middle class. pell grants aren't just an investment in an individual student, but an investment in the future of our nation. we need a comprehensive approach that makes strategic cuts and investments with an eye towards the future. instead, the republicans are taking a meat axe to programs

that are crucial to american competitiveness. this strategy is senseless and it is tragic. it is tantamount to telling our young people you will not have a future. instead, we must win the future by innovating, outbuilding and outeducating the world. we must train all americans from every class and background to succeed in the economy of tomorrow. we must give them the financial aid that they need. so i ask members to support this amendment and restore pell grant funding to our students. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. rehberg: the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3, 112th scong which states it shall not be in order to

consider an amendment proposing a net increase unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposed in equal or greater decrease in budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill and violation of such section and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? >> will the gentleman yield? ms. moore: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized on the point of order. ms. moore: thank you on the point of order. mr. chair, i would just like to say that i think that the point of order should not be considered in order because this continuing resolution looks at striking waste, fraud and fat out of our budget.

and i would argue that amendment number 490 is, in fact, the bones, the nerve and the -- the chair: the gentlelady will confine her remarks to the point of order. ms. moore: ok. well, i am, mr. chair, making the point that this amendment is in order because it deals with the continuing resolution, which will slash the pell grant funding by $845. and the purpose of the continuing resolution is to slash funding that is unnecessary in our budget. and i would argue that this amendment should be made in order because the pell grant is the cornerstone of our -- the chair: again, remind the

gentlelady to confine her remarks to the point of order. ms. moore: would the gentleman restate his point. the chair: the gentleman is recognized to restate his point of order. mr. rehberg: the amendment is not in order under section 3- j-3, 112th congress which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill that proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or debater decrease in such greater authority pursuant to clause rule 2-f. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of this section. and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from montana makes a point of order that the amendment offered violates

section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. it establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate of the chair of the committee on the budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. ms. moore: mr. chair, does the lady from seek recognition, i would like to strike the last word. hace the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. ms. moore: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 239 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas.

>> i reserve a point of order. can the chair: the gentleman from montana reserves a point of order. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i have a parliamentary inquirey and there were individuals who wanted to debate on the amendment of ms. chu and we are allowed to do that but the gentleman rose before the last word. will we be able to debate before the gentleman pursues his point of order? the chair: the members may offer pro forma amendments but the chair in oak the chamber recognized the gentleman from montana. the gentleman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: if a member is on their feet, you would be kind enough to recognize them before the gentleman from montana pursues the point of order which

he reserved. the chair: not while a point of order is pending. ms. jackson lee: let me say that i rise to join with the chu that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks moore-jackson lee amendment and i now introduce the jackson lee amendment, which i rise that also addresses the question of the pell grants and would hope my colleagues would be allowed to debate it. i consider this an emergency and will make this point as the gentleman makes his point of order. let me refer to where we are today, because we are needing to be engaged in making jobs and creating jobs. i'm not sure what my colleagues heard in the last election, but what i heard was that we needed jobs. and it's clear and i hope that we can see this. we have been here five weeks-plus and the number of jobs have been created by republicans is zero. so here we are now with a 15% cut on pell grants. and what does that mean?

it means that schools all around the nation will, in fact, not be able to provide pell grants to the individual students that need them. in fact, in my own district, with a 15% cut, this 5,550 going down to 4,075 will impact my constituency. the cuts will jeopardize education and the future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on pell grants in order to finance their education. 5,276 studying at texas state university and at the university of houston. 16,570 in my district alone. those from the state of montana will lose their pell grants. those from the state of alabama from the state of connecticut, from the state of wisconsin will

lose their pell grants. but the real insult is, this will stop the education of thousands upon thousands of students in the middle of their education. again, how many jobs have the republicans created? zero. and i always want to bring this chart, which is very hard to see, but we can see how many jobs we lost in the last administration. we're on the rise of creating jobs. in fact the c.b.o. said that our future is great. it will not be great with a misguided plan to eliminate $600 million, $600 million from the pell grant program. it is absolutely absurd. let me share with you a thought from the "new york times," for example. this c.r. is idealogically driven. we started with a $74 billion cut, but because the republicans decided that it is preferable to abide by polls, they decided to

move to a draconian and lewd russ crust $100 -- ludicrous $100 billion. in addition to the amendment i offered to the n.i.h., those grants that were competitive for fellowship and research have been cut at texas southern university and university of houston and many other institutions are impacted by the cuts to the n.i.h. grants. and this is the greatest sin. in a meeting i had with my community colleges, my school districts, they were incomplete panic about losing pell grants that then impact on the wonderful upsurge of jobs from what we have lost in the last administration. i simply ask my colleagues why we are going down a pathway that would take away the growth we have provided. i would ask as we look to the future that this be restored. my amendment as ms. chu's

amendment, the one i joined and intended to speak on was to restore these dollars. a new "wall street journal" survey shows they expect the economy to expand at the fastest pace in 2003. not with these draconian cuts. what they have gotten down, we might be able to provide $600 million for students. no, we want to stand with ideological view points and individuals who say i was sent here to cut but you were sent here to protect the american people. students who will create the work force of the 21st century and you are telling them they can't get an education. the constitution reminds us of what a wonderful country, a country that bleevens we are created equal. we don't have the same economic opportunity but we have the

ability of education like wonderful programs like the pell grant program. now you are telling poor income students, the doors are closed and lights are out and you don't deserve an equal education. support the amendment that will provide for $600 million restored up to the pell grants. i ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment. the chair: gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 of house resolution 112 congress which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to the germ appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f. it proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: any member wish to be

heard on the point of order? gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i tried to craft my discussion in the form of an emergency, the loss of thousands upon thousands students' access to education. i consider that an emergency. the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. will the gentlelady speak to the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i consider this an emergency and ask this point of order be waived in order to provide for the thousands of students, mr. chairman, that are now going to stop school because of the 800 they will lose. asking the gentleman for a waiver based on an emergency and there was no offset available that would not impact negatively other vital programs to make america equal. i would ask for a waiver and ask for this amendment to be accepted and point of order to be waived. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. .

anybody member wish to speak? the gentleman from montana makes a point of order the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas violates section 3-v-3 of house resolution 5. 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided from an estimate on the chair on the committee on budget it proposes a net increase on the budget and therefore the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank so you much, mr. chair. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chair. i rise to support the chu- morris amendment to the continuing appropriations act h.r. 1 because we're deeply concerned about the cut to the pell grant funding contained in

the continuing resolution which would slash funding by $845, a 15% cut. and of course this amendment would preserve the pell grant program and maintain the full award levels. you know, i am, again, just a little bit perturbed, mr. chairman, like this cut like so many cuts in the resolution would disproportionately harm traditionally underserved communities. according to the national center for education statistics, pell recipients are more likely to be female, first generation college students, and less likely to be white than those who don't receive the grant. in other words, mr. chairman, they kind of look like me.

minority students also face disproportionate unmet needs, meaning the amount they still need to pay for college even after family contributions, parties, raising money from their churches, grants, nonprivate loans, still will not meet their needs to go to college. women sometimes come into college with more precarious financial situations. they're already parents and mothers. now, you know, if this country is prepared to just slide into irrelevantcy in the global economic community because we don't educate our work force, this would be the loss leading legislation to do that. cutting the program is so counterintuitive to our remaining a first-rate power. and what is our secret weapon

in this country for staying on top? it's our diversity. our diversity to be competitive. we're women. we're blacks. we're asians, we're hispanics, we're indians, we're hmong and bring different talents and abilities to the table. and our ability to educate these young people comes with our ability to provide a pell grant which levels the playing field for all students. there's not a politician in this country that doesn't make part of their platform that this country has got to have a highly educated 21st century work force. there's not a politician, democrat, republican, independent or any other stripe that doesn't say and pronounce that education is the key. and yet we're not willing to provide the lubricant so the

key can fit into the lock and that is the resources to make sure our students can go to school. this pell grant is that opportunity. don't deny it. to students. don't deny it. don't deny it, mr. chair. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 301, line 17, section 1832, unobligated balances made available in subparagraph a through e of section 401-a-e-1 of the higher education act of 1965, $986,433,851 is rescinded. section 1833, the level for department of education, higher education, $1,690,285,000. section 1834, the level for department of education, institute of education sciences, $530,106,000.

section 1835, level for cooperation for national and community service, operating expenses, zero dollars. section 1836, the level for cooperation for national and community service, national service trust, $50 million. section 1837, the level for cooperation for national and community service salaries and expenses, $68 million. section 1838, funds made available for corporation for public broadcasting and title 4 of division f of public law 111-8. the unobligated balance is rescinded. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. will the gentleman specify which amendment he is offering. whether blumenauer: excuse me, number 436. the chair: amendment 436. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 436 printed in the congressional record offered by mr.

blumenauer of oregon. the chair: the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: i reserve a point of order on the the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: i'm sad to have to offer this amendment. it's more unfortunate if we're going to be subject to a strict interpretation of the house rules, i have a list of provisions already in this young session where time after time the majority has chosen to raid the rules when it was first adopted when it served their purpose. if our colleagues are serious about cutting the deficit, they will not just allow the amendment to be debated, but they will vote upon it and pass it. mr. chairman, the public doesn't care whether the deficit is reduced by closing a tax loophole or reducing spending.

i bet it would rather stop another giveaway to large oil companies rather than cutting programs that are important to them. for that matter, i think the voters like public broadcasting a lot more than they like congress. these funds for public broadcasting are absolutely essential to protect. it helps serve 170 million americans every month. especially important are the innovative programs for education, culture, and public affairs. make no mistake, the reduction of the funds that are contemplated by my colleagues in two years, eliminating public broadcasting support altogether will damage all the stations and indeed i think all of us listen to these stations ourselves. but it would particularly hurt the stations in rural and small

town america. first, small town stations rely more heavily on public funds than the stations in big cities like boston, new york, chicago, even portland, oregon. second, not only do these smaller communities rely more heavily on the stations that are located there, but in rural and small town america, the circumstances are much more expensive to broadcast to them, taking an example in a region familiar to the chairman in our pacific northwest, for o o o og public broadcasting, which serves both our districts, it costs 11 times as much to broadcast to remote burns, oregon, than it does in the metropolitan area. public broadcasting is also the source of innovative broadcast

-- innovative journalism that you're not going to find any place else. at a time when large corporate newsrooms are cutting back on foreign affairs, for instance, public broadcasting, because of the generous support of viewers and support from the country itself is being able to expand its foreign coverage. i'll bet most of us in this chamber today relied on npr first thing in the morning as we were getting ready to go to work to be aware of recent events, for example, in egypt. it is particularly important for our children. public broadcasting is the only source of programming that is geared to educate our children, not try to sell something to them. pulling out this vital public

funding stream is going to undermine that mission of educating our children. and at a time when i would think that we would want to support public-private partnerships, taking away the essential contributions that the federal government has provided since 1967, undermines that public-private partnership where we see six, seven times the funding leverage as a result of that private -- that public contribution. mr. chairman, we've seen this movie before. the republicans when they came into power before tried to shut down public broadcasting and we have seen the american public push back. in this just this last week, tens of thousands of people have called our offices intreating us to allow the

funding to continue. i would strongly urge there not be selective application of the rules to this amendment, but waive, as the majority has done time and time again for their purposes to enable this provision to go forward, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rayburg: i make a point of order against the amendment. the amendment adds a limitation to a general appropriations bill. under clause 2 of rule 21, such amendments are not in order during the reading of the general appropriations bill. the rule states in part, except as provided in paragraph d, an amendment proposing a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in existing law for the period of the limitation shall not be in order under consideration of the general appropriations bill. mr. chairman, the amendment adds a limitation that is not specifically contained or authorized in existing law during the rating. the amendment therefore is in

violation of clause 2-c of rule 21. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlelady from new york. does the gentlelady wish to speak on the point of order? does the gentlelady from new york wish to speak on the point of order? does the gentleman from massachusetts wish to speak on the point of order? if not, the gentleman from colorado wish to speak on the point of order? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman wishes to speak on the point of order? the gentleman is insisting on a ruling from the chair. >> no. the chair: if not the chair is prepared to rule. the amendment includes a limitation, as such under clause 2-c and clause 2-d of rule 21, it is not in order as a matter of form until the reading for the amendment has

progressed to the end of the bill. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from new york rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: it's deja vu. here we go again. this week we are again fighting extreme efforts to dismantle the public broadcasting services that 170 million americans use for news and education. in 1995 and 2005, we defeated efforts to slash the corporation for public broadcasting. how long will it take for some people to learn that the public

wants congress to focus on creating jobs, not laying off bert and ernie with g.o. pink slips. my grandchildren are learning from not only old favorites like big bird by maya and miguel, clifford the big red-dog and a cost of other fun and educational characters. . millions of americans rely on public tv and leverage $6 for every $1 in federal funds. do we want to live in a society in which the only characters that appear on children's programs are those who gross the highest profits rather than those who deliver the most compelling lessons to our kids?

when will our news delivered primarilyly focused on their bottom line? of course not. i'm pleased to support this amendment to restore cuts. in recent years, we have already cut funding for programs related to public broadcasting, including the department of education's ready to teach program. we cannot abandon the corporation for public broadcasting all together go. republicans should be less preoccupied with silencing cookie monster and more focused on getting our economy back on track. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. lamborn: i move to strike the last word. i thank the hard work that the house appropriations committee has done in crafting a bill that

in so many ways is making the tough choices necessary to bring back fiscal sanity to washington. i'm pleased they have incorporated a bill that i had earlier filed in this session, h.r. 69, which would eliminate taxpayer subsidies for the public broadcasting. there are groups, such as the club for growth, americans for limited growth, national taxpayer union that have endorsed this end of funding for taxpayer-supported public broadcasting. in 1967, when the public broadcasting act was first enacted, the intent of that act was quote, to provide telecommunication services to all citizens in the united states, unquote. that's been accomplished. that was over 40 years ago. now we have 500 channels on cable tv. people get internet access at their cell phone. we have satellite wireless

available around this country. we have so many media options now that weren't available years ago. we have fulfilled the purpose of that act. now that republicans are in control of the house, we are serious about getting the budget under control. now there is some good programming that the corporation for public broadcasting produces that i personally enjoy and like, but that's not the issue whether we like it or not, but whether taxpayers should subsidize this form of broadcasting. when something puts out good quality programming like the programming does, they could survive if they wanted to go into the free market whether selling advertising or something like that. they are capable of surviving and not just surviving but

thriving in the open markets because they do have good quality programming, they don't need to rely on taxpayers. and when you look at what a deep fiscal hole we are in as a country, for instance, this annual deficit we are in the middle of right now, $1.6 trillion, the highest in the history of this country. the time has come to end funding for government programs that are no longer necessary. so it's a matter of fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity that the appropriations committee has produced this amendment. it's not against the corporation for public broadcasting but for the taxpayers saying you don't have to keep subsidizing something that no longer needs the government crutch that it originally was given. the amount of money we're talking about is considerable. fiscal year 2011, the

corporation for public broadcasting appropriation is $430 million. for next year, 2012, it will be $445 million and president obama's budget request that was just submitted that we got on monday, asks for $451 million for 2014. that's almost half a billion dollars. when we have $1.5 trillion annual deficits, we have to get our budget under order. and the reason is because by leaving money in the private sector, that will create jobs, rather than the government and the favored programs having the money, if that money can stay in the private sector, people can invest and create private sector jobs. and those are the jobs that americans are really looking for. with that, mr. chairman, i yield

back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon that the majority has unfortunately ruled out of order. in this continuing resolution, the republicans are trying to dismantle one of the most precious landmarks of the entire media landscape. public broadcasting is an electronic oasis in learning in what is called the vast wasteland in commercial television. why do i say that? i say it because you just have to look on what is on commercial television from the perspective of a parent of children trying to ensure that those children are given the educational and

informational programming that will help in their development. here is a short sampling on what was on television during the day today. there's a spate of daytime soap oprahs which are full of adult themes and then there were programs on this afternoon such as "the house will be in order.ing", "buried alive" and there was "hollywood's most shock r shocking breakups" and dog the bount hunter" and weren't talking about "clifford the big red dog." the private sector, commercial television is taking care of the children's audience. it does not. the cartoon network is in no way to be compared to what is on the

public broadcasting system from 6:00 a.m. every morning until 6:00 p.m. every night. 12 hours every day, something that parents can rely upon for their children to see, which is education neal nutritious for their development. and it's on every television station, every public television station in the country every single day. let me give you a typical day. on wgbh up in boston, beginning at 6:00 a.m., it's "between the lions," then "clifford the big red dog" and "arthur," martha speaks. "curious george," which brings us up to noontime. the parents are happy, the kids have good programming that they're watching. and rather than soap operas in

the afternoon, the kids see "sid the science guy" "the electric company" and on and on and on until 6:00 at night. pbs is really the children's television network and generations of children and parents have benefited from this programming being on. what the republicans are trying to do is end thisera and toss these families over to this commercial world, which is fine, if you really do believe that cartoon network and other networks like that target to children for commercial purposes and in any way substitute for this "sesame street" diet that children have been on for more than one generation. not just those that come from the white upper class.

above 80% whether your family is asian, hispanic, white, 80% of all those parents believe the benefit that comes from the public broadcasting system in the children's programming that is presented to those children. so c.p.d. doesn't just stand for corporation for public broadcasting, but stands for children's and parents' benefit and that's why it was important in 1967 and that is why it is important today. this has been the crown jewel in our national media mix when it comes to the children of our country. and this attempt to take out a meat cleaver and to cut this programming source off in a way that would harm those families in our country is a huge

mistake. now mr. blumenauer has attempted to offer an amendment that would have restored the full $460 million in funding for the public broadcasting system. but, in turn, what his amendment would have tried to do is to go to the big tax breaks for oil and gas companies in our country. but i would ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. objection's heard. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does gentlelady texas rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i'm happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank you. and it's understandable why the gentleman who did object objected because i know where he is coming from and did not want

to hear the next sentence because the gentleman from montana does believe the tax breaks of big oil should stay on the books, $40 billion over the next five years and would rather see a cutting of big oil be substituted by a cutting of big bird, ok. that's what this is all about. misallocation of resources within our society. and i understand why the gentleman from montana doesn't want to hear those words spoken but should get ready to hear it over and over again. it's not just big oil -- big oil is going to get all the breaks that they want and might come at the expense of children's television or poor people, but i will tell you this much, grandma isn't going to get her lunch because of these people over here and these guys want to take big oil too much. but we are going to have a big debate about this as each and

every day goes by and i thank the gentlelady and i congratulate the gentleman from oregon for making this amendment. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for confirming the strategy that is being used by our friends on the other side of the aisle. if it's good and has been good it's time for it to go. i join the gentleman in supporting the gentleman's amendment from oregon and cite channel 8 in houston, texas, that compensate for blood domestic fights on commercial tv during the day and doesn't expose our children to opportunities for learning. national public radio as well has its challenges. so i just hope as we begin to understand that our economy is turning, that we will invest in our children and as my friend announced, big bird is still alive and other new characters

have been utilized to teach new children. it provides good education in pre-school, children at home or home day care, to give them exposure to learning, reading, writing and colorful activities. let me say that i'm sorry the gentleman's amendment was ruled out of order. it looks like we turned our heads away from investing in education, cutting pell grants, cutting public broadcasting, we just said enough is enough with job creation and let's get rid of education as well. and i ask that this c.r. be defeated. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 305 line 10, level for institutes of museum and library services office of museum and library service grants and administration $2465

,865,000. medicare payment advisory commission, salaries and expenses $12,450,00. section 1841, level for national labor relations board, salaries and expenses $233,400,000. >> i have an amendment at the desk made in order at the rule. the clerk: amendment number 410 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . mr. price: it's important to put this discussion tonight in a little context. our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying we want to dismantle this and slash this and cut that. the truth of the matter, madam chair, is that what we want to do is save. we want to save the american

taxpayer and yes, save the country. because what's happening, and the american people know it, is that this federal government has for year after year after year and more over the last four years, borrowed too much and tax toad much and it's destroying jobs, destroying jobs. if you don't believe the words, all you have to do is look at the picture and the pictures show very clearly that what is happening -- this is 2006 down here when speaker pelosi came into power and the amount of spending at the federal level, and this is where we are right now, about 1/3 more under this administration and this is where it's going. and the american people are sick and tired of it. and what they sent folks here to washington to do is to decrease spending, to decrease borrowing, and to decrease taxing so that we can put the american people back to work. that's what this is all about. it's not about some small program here or some large

program there, it's about putting the american people back to work and making the government the right size. so i rise on my amendment which identifies an agency that can only be described as anti-worker and anti-business and anti-jobs. you know what it is, madam chair, it's the national labor relations board. it's a new deal relic charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and investigating unfair labor practices. however, what's happened is that the board has gotten beyond any claims that it's a neutral arbiter of labor recommendations and it starts with craig becker, the recess appointment, which means no senate confirmations by the obama to lead the board. it's got huge ties to seiu and the afl-cio and proven to be very adept at carrying the water for big labor while siding against american employers and the american taxpayer. he could hardly be characterized as an impartial

voice. the out of control nrlb is seeking to expand the board under current law. american businesses are under constant threat unthe nlrb while they fight for the card act. this was a bill the democrats when they were in charge of this whole place couldn't get through congress so now they want to do it by rule and enact it by rule through the nlrb. remarkable, remarkable overreach. they try to rig the deck over and over again. but the rigging of the deck is just what big labor needs at this point because the private sector unionization is only about 7% in this country, 7% of our work force. so a new influx of dues paying members is needed for their contributions and for their political campaign. so my amendment is very simple. at a time of crippling national debt, crippling national debt that destroys jobs, my amendment would defund the nlrb

and save the american taxpayer $283 million. it makes sense since this agency has seen its role remarkably diminished. the nlrb caseload has shrunk dramatically by a 40% drop since 2009. and yet while its role has been diminishing, its reach into america's pocketbooks has only expanded. so this amendment would -- a vote for this amendment would be a vote for america's job creators and we would work to defund an agency whose time has really, really passed. so i urge the adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: to seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: this is amazing. this would be what a step

backward for democracy if there were support for this bill. this amendment would actually eliminate all funding for the national labor relations board. the nlrb has been in existence for 75 years. its functions are to protect the rights of workers to unionize or not to unionize, to promote peaceful, productive relations between labor and management. it deducts secret ballot elections and determines whether workers want to be represented by a union. it investigates and resolving complaints of unfair labor practices that are brought against both unions and employers. it protects workers from retaliation from exercising their rights. these functions are fundamental. to democracy in a workplace. why do we want to throw out the entire system with nothing to replace it? if the amendment were adopted, what would take the place of the nlrb in determining workers' preferences about unionization?

if workers are fired for joining a union, where would they go for a remedy? the continuing resolution itself is bad enough as far as the nlrb is concerned. it cuts the board's budget by $50 million. an 18% cut to be made in the last six months of the year, so it really winds up being a 36% cut. it would have to furlough employees to get through the rest of the year, furloughs that could be as much as three months for each employee. these are folks who really want to create jobs and now we're going to lay off people. in other words, the c.r. has crippled already the ability of the board to protect workers' rights. it's simply about protecting workers' rights. and to shut down the board completely, truly is a backward step for democracy. i urge the defeat of the amendment. and i certainly hope whatever the final appropriations legislation for 2011 ultimately

emerges will ensure that the nlrb has enough funding to continue to do its job. and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. andrews: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam chair. this amendment sets a new standard of irresponsibility that i hope the house never again emulates. let's assume that a worker who's trying to organize a union is fired because of his or her union organizing activity? files a complaint against the employer for an unfair labor practice, and the national labor relations board is in the process of determining whether that claim is right or wrong and what should happen as a

result. or let's imagine that a worker believes he or she has been not properly represented by the union they're in, and they file a claim against their union, claiming that the union has failed in its duty to represent that workers. this amendment says that both of those claims will just stop. in the middle. we'll pull the plug from the adjudication of the rights of these americans. i frankly think that it's ironic that a majority which chooses to define itself in terms of its great devotion to the constitution may be proposing an amendment which violates the due process rights of american citizens, kind of on its face. if you file a claim and a duly

constituteded a jude indicated body starts to -- adjudicated body starts to hear that claim, my sense is the congress cannot step in in the middle of the adjudication and take your rights away. but that appears to be what's happening here. this is a precedent that would be inappropriate and even dangerous to the extreme in this regard. the principle that apparently informs this amendment is it congress doesn't like something that an agency is doing substantively, we can pull the plug on the agency and not give it any more money in the middle of its deliberations. imagine for a moment if during the run-up to the wall street meltdown in 2008, that those of us who were unhappy with decisions of the securities and exchange commission, which we were unhappy with, so, you know, we're so unhappy what the

s.e.c. is doing, we're going to defund that organization and stop the process of any investigations they're doing, stop the process of any decisions they're making, just pull the plug in the middle of their deliberations. i think that the majority would have correctly criticized us for an act of irresponsibility. we didn't do that. we disliked the actions of the s.e.c., we came together and passed a law, the dodd-frank law last year that tried to improve its operations. that's the way a responsible legislative body acts. so forget for a moment about the consequences of this amendment for those who work for the nlrb or for those who are somehow engaged in it, let's talk about the litigants, the workers, the employers, the unions, all of those involved here, the agency just disappears.

the day that this law is signed. yes, congress has the power of the purse. but with power comes responsibility. this is an amendment which sets a new low standard of irresponsibility in this house if we don't like the substantive decisions of an agency, then amend the statute they're operating under or litigate those decisions. but to pull the plug in the middle of decisionmaking that affects thousands of americans is frankly an abuse of the power of the purse. i think it's unconstitutional as a violation of the due process rights of those litigants and i would urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> mr. speaker and members of the house, i rise in opposition to this legislation. as the ranking member of the subcommittee pointed out, this amendment to begin with seems to make no sense at all. mr. miller: it's interesting that the gentleman said, you pull the plug, but then everybody is left without a right. there is no private right of action, there's no place to go. you have -- there are some 1,571 secret ballot elections for union representation, last year that were supervised by the national labor relations board to certify those unions or decertify unions in some cases where that action was taken in the secret election, and now those -- there will be no remedy. you wouldn't be able to decertify the union or wouldn't be able to certify the union. there are employees every day who are fired by simply suggesting to their employer that they would like to have a

union. that alone will get you fired over and over again in this country. that employee is now without a job but no right of action to go back and to find out whether that person was wrongfully fired. the same is true if an employer wants to make an allegation of secondary boycott which is illegal under the law. where do they go for the remedy? there is no private right of action and it's contained in the national labor relations act and administered by the board. so this amendment just sort of creates chaos. and it denies people rights, be they employers or employees, be they pro union or anti-union, whatever their situation is, this simply denies them the ability to take advantage of the law or to have the law administered in any way or fashion and provides really no alternative to them because, as i said, this occupies the entire area for these individuals. so i don't know if this law is a temper tantrum, i don't know

if this law is just -- i don't know what the hell it is. but clearly, it doesn't address what might be legitimate concerns about the operation of the board. the board's been controversial over the years and back and forth and people have agreed and disagreed with its rulings and actions or you might want to amend the law. but this amendment doesn't do any of this. and i would certainly hope that we would continue with -- when you look around to other countries, i think you'd say this is a pretty successful system of managing labor relations in the workplace. it certainly took a history of actions that people considered wrong and dangerous and concerned about the economy, concerned about individual safety, concerned about the safety of workplaces and the ability of businesses to survive through the pass edge of the national labor relations act -- passage of the national labor relations act and people

had a place to go for their complaints and determine their rights. so i would hope that members of congress would reject this amendment and maintain the rights of workers and employers to have their concerns addressed and adjudicate fed necessary. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a record vote. the yeas and nays, a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, will be postponed. >> thank you. the clerk will read. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 303, the dual

benefits payments account, $57 million. section 1843, the level for social security administration, payments to social security trust funds, $21,404,000. section 1844, the level for the first paragraph under the heading social security, administration, lick limitation on administrative expenses, $10,675,500,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 15. . mr. tonko: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 15 offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: s the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: i'm concerned about

the effects the republican spending plan will have on our nation's seniors. this amendment would stop the cut of $125 million to the social security administration operating budget. slashing funding for the social security administration is slashing money out of social security plain and simple. cuts will directly affect our seniors. there is no way around it and my amendment seeks to avert this i am pending crisis. the funding in this irresponsible republican spending plan is half a billion dollars less what social security spent in 2010 to carry out basic operations but the cost of running social security in 2010 will not sufficient ice for 2011. our nation's baby boomers are retiring growing the number of seniors and the number of claims social security must process each month. this continuing resolution

leaves it $1 billion short to keep checks going out on time. this irresponsible republican spending bill creates a shortfall that social security will not have to survive on. both social security and office of management and budget have confirmed that these massive cuts would force social security to lay off nearly employees and close offices across the country up to four weeks. what does this mean for seniors on social security? 400,000 seniors will not have their applications processed this year. it means that 29 ,000 people would not have their disability applications processed and no other source of income. it means that 70,000 fewer people will have their appeals heard burdenening seniors with wait times with over a year before cases can move forward allow them to receive their

benefits earned and it means that there will be 32,000 fewer investigations to root improper payments fraud and abuse. each month social security processes nearly half a million new applications from seniors and the disabled. employee layoffs and office closures lasting a month would delay benefits to all those applicants, disrupting seniors and wido a's checks and delaying payments for those trying to live on a fixed income. closing offices would create a backlog of applicants so when offices are reopened is -- they would have a backlog and who knows when they would catch up. never in the history of social security has there been a backlog. this bill is precedent setting and without a doubt it would create the first social security

backlog in our nation's history. it would force the social security system to shut its doors for up to a month, something that will affect every person receiving social security payments. people would get busy signals when they call for help. seniors would wait for appoint ments or access to their benefits. the seniors we represent, the entire body here represents will feel the impact of these cuts. the majority is lauding the fact that this bill represents the largest spending cut in the history of our country. if they want to cut, fine, but i will not stand for social security or balanced on the backs of our nation's seniors that bail out the rich and comfortable. madam chair, i urge defeat of this bill. the adoption of my amendment ain 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 montana rise? mr. rehberg: the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill sm the amendment is not in order under section 3-j 3 which states that it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill in net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-if of rule 21. it proposes a net increase in violation of this section and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: the chair understands the gentleman is making a point of order? mr. rehberg: correct. the chair: any member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. tonko: i rise to speak on the point of order. it eliminates extreme budget cuts to social security. these will create massive gaps

leading to even larger costs, larger costs in the future. my amendment averts this shortsighted downfall that addresses the gentleman's point of order. the chair: the gentleman must confine his remarks to the point of order. mr. tonko: they pose real threats to seniors' benefits and force -- the chair: gentleman from new york will confine his remarks to the point of order. mr. tonko: i ask that the point of order be waived and on behalf of seniors who rely on behalf of social security i ask that the gentleman withdraw his point of order. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. mr. tonko: i yield back. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from from montana makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the

gentleman from new york violates 3-j-3 of section 5. it establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been guided by an estimate of the chair on the committee of the budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore, the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 304 line 7, section 1845, level for the first paragraph under the heading social security administration, supplemental security income program 39 892,165,000. funds appropriated for investment in information technology and telecommunications hardware and software infrastructure $500 million is rescinded.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. tonko: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 16. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. tonko of new york. mr. rehberg: madam chair. i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: i offer this amendment because i'm concerned about the effects of the irresponsible republican spending bill on our nation's seniors and more specifically on our social security system. if my amendment does not pass, $500 million will be stripped from social security in this 4 00-page irresponsible republican bill, with no hearings and written and debated through the night and being rammed through this chamber, social security is put at risk.

the foundation for so many of our nation's seniors and retirement is social security and this bill would steal half a billion dollars from the program. this is money that keeps the lights on, doors open and the checks going out to those who earned it, yes, those who worked hard and played by the rules. it goes to those who have rightfully played into the system and deserve a return on investment and should not be taken away in the dead of night. nearly half a billion dollars if stolen back will be devastating. we might as well put the sign on the door of social security, sorry, we are closed for business. a cut will lay off employees that process and mail these checks to seniors. it will furlough every social security administration employee for a month or month this year, every year that works for the social security administration could lose his or her job for at least one month this year. most of my constituents might

say well, i don't know anybody that works for the social security administration. what does that mean for me? unfortunately, it means 400,000 people across these united states would not have their claims processed this year. think of it, you are finally eligible for social security, your plan for monthly income and budget based upon this program is disrupted, perhaps it allows you to retire completely after a long and productive life of work. you walk up to the office to apply but are greeted with a dark and empty building or ensure that your payments will be processed and all you get a dial tone and nobody is there to answer. this is unthinkable and even more egregious, 290,000 disabled workers would wait months for their claims to be processed threatening people with further insecurity or imagine you want to appeal your funding amount or error in your payment. something my office prides

itself is getting these get heard and settled and give them due payment and peace of mind. under this irresponsible republican spending bill which will cut half a billion dollars of social security, some appeals case is would cry out and no one would listen and nor would they clean up cases of fraud, abuse and improper payment. this cut could cost the government more than it safes. no secret that the majority in this body seeks to privatize social security. their top budget maker has proven that in its plan. this provision is in the irresponsible republican spending bill and another brick laid along the path to social security destruction. prarb proposed privatizing this program in 2005 and americans said no. we are right to say no that social security would have trillions in the social security

during the meltdown. instead social security did not lose a single penny and bears repeating in the worst economic recession since the great depression, social security did not lose a single penny. we must protect social security from being raided. without it, our seniors would be living in poverty. and makes up 76% of the total income for low-income seniors and not just the seniors who depend on social security. many are able to survive on their loved once benefits. raiding social security would hurt them too. in 1935, president roosevelt uttered a quote that is as true today as it was 76 years ago. he said, we put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. with those taxes in there, no

damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. with that, i thank you, madam chair, and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: increases a net and amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered enwlock block with another amendment or amendments proposing a greateror equal decrease in budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f rule 21. it proposes a net increase in violation of this section. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does the chair understand that the gentleman is making a point of order against the amendment? mr. rehberg: yes. the chair: any member wish to be

heard? mr. tonko: i wish to rise to speak against the point of order. the chair: the gentleman is asked to keep his points to the point of order. mr. tonko: i want to be clear everyone in this house and everyone knows what a $500 million cut would do. on the point of order, my amendment eliminates harmful cuts to social security which saves money in the long-term. the chair: the gentleman from new york will keep his remarks to the point of order. mr. tonko: on the point of order, the social security administration has said the cuts could lead to offices closing their doors and stopping claims processing and not being able to answer the phones. the chair: the gentleman from new york will suspend. the gentleman from montana -- the chair needs to hear the comments that the gentleman from new york was making.

mr. tonko: on the point of order, i'm disappointed that the other side submitted a rule that doesn't allow the amendment to save funding for social security and guarantee that checks go out on time. my amendment would ensure that checks go out on time, would ensure -- the chair: the gentleman from new york will suspend. he is not keeping his words to the point of order. . mr. tonko: i yield back. the chair: the chair will hear the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: after all the interrupting, the gentleman was addressing the point of order correctly. if mr. tonko's amendment is accepted it will raise net budget authority in this line. in fact, as mr. tonko has said, if you look at the net effect of reducing this line item, the net effect is to increase the amount of senior poverty, to increase the amount of seniors

who are not getting social security checks in time and therefore raising the cost to society and ultimately raising the cost to the budget. in fact, unless you adopt the tonko amendment, you will be agreeing not only to slash services to seenors but to increase the deficit by raising costs throughout the system. it is directly on point. and it's important to understand that the points that mr. tonko is making about the quality of service under social security impact directly on whether or not this is net higher budget authority, which it's not. it saves money to endorse the tonko amendment. this house should consider it on its merits, reor no and the point of order should be ruled out of order. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from montana makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5 for the reasons stated in the previous ruling of the chair. the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order.

the clerk will read. does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i do. the chair: for what purpose? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. weiner: the decision has been relying on the chair who advocates on behalf of the majority for privatizing social security. to explain to the viewers and this chamber what that means is that he believes, and the republicans believe if you take social security which is a guaranteed program, if you take social security which is a program that can pay 100% of all of its benefits for at least 26 years, and invest a portion of that in the stock market, it's better policy. it is on that person's advice that you have been ruling the last few occasions that mr. tonko is out of order in trying to preserve that system that we have. if there is an important debate

in the context of the american budget in the year 2011, it is the one that mr. tonko is trying to engage. it is whether or not privatizing social security, what this side of the aisle, madam chair, seeks to do, versus keeping the program the way it is, the single most successful government program arguably in american history. what mr. tonko and many of us are trying to do is we want to preserve that program. let's have this debate on this floor in an honest way. for months now we've had this kind of strange shadow dance around the idea of privatization of social security. well, the chairman of the committee, not some fringe element of the republican party, the chairman of the budget committee, has suggested in a book that they paraded around the country on that they are going to offer privatization of social security as the foundation for its budget. and now for the last three amendments, mr. tonko has been trying to engage that debate. and the chair has said while using the best judgment of the

budget committee it seems his policies would increase the net budget authority in the bill. let's put that aside for a moment and have a real full-throated debate on whose side the different people in this chamber are on the fundamental question of the security of the social security system. and let's review the bidding. on one side you have democrats. who created, supported, and have fought for the social security program ever since it was passed in 1933 and the first check went out in 1935. we say it should be something that generation by generation is there for seniors, one group works, the other, the seniors retire and we support each other as part of that contract. it's fundamental to democratic values, i believe with a capital d but also with a small d and many of my republican friend, they say, you know what, watching the stock market, we think it would be a good idea to take a portion of that social security trust fund and stock it in on stocks and equities and bonds. and they make an argument that actually has an element of truth to it and they say if you invest in every dime of the

social security in the stock market since the beginning of the social security system you'd have more money in it today because the stock market is way up since 1933. yes, but as we all know, it didn't go like this, let the stenographer note my hand going up, it went like this. let the stenographer note a roller coaster shape. so i ask, do you want to be one of the seniors that retires in the dip of the roller coaster? they apparently want to take that chance. my republican friends want to take that chance, and we democrats say no. this is not a program that seniors get wealthy on, but it's a safety net program. and it works. it took roughly a 30% poverty level among seniors to single digits that we have today. and then they say oh, no, but it will never be there in the future, the baby boomer generation, the biggest generation in american history. we've heard that one before. no. the baby boomers had babies. now they're the biggest generation in american history.

now they're paying in. and by the way, do you know what helps the social security program more than anything else? people working, people paying social security taxes, people on the job, all the things that they're cutting in this very same budget. so as mr. tonko tries to make that point and engage that argument, i see nothing but members on this side of the aisle cowering under their desk and hiding behind robert's rules. and when the speaker -- when the chair makes her ruling, listen carefully. she says relying on the best judgment of the chairman of the budget committee. now, i like the chairman of the budget committee, he's a fine man. his judgment, not so much. and i think that we should have this conversation because if there's a fundamental difference here, it is on social security and its future. we want it to be there. and i say to people watching at this hour, first of all, have a warm glass of milk. there might be other ways to get to sleep. but i would say to you, think

very carefully about what this budget debate is about. it's very easy to lose side of page this, line that. what it really is a fundamental difference of philosophy. on the democratic side of this debate, we're saying let's try to build this country on a foundation of everyone having a safety net, everyone having a basic opportunity, and none of us can really get too far ahead if we're leaving a whole bunch of people behind. this debate is not new. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. weiner: this debate is not new and i'll let someone else continue it. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i appreciate my colleague's comments from new york. i think the chairity that comes out of the debate on this bill is to look in fact what the american people have asked us to do. they've asked us truly to work together to address what their top priority is and that is creating jobs and to foster

economic recovery. and again, as we listen to this debate as it unfolded tonight, what we see is that unfortunately the majority's priorities are deeply out of touch. with those of the country. and democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. we believe that we start by ending tax subsidies and special interest waste. we need to make programs accountable and end the ones that will not work. but the challenge is not whether we address the deficit or -- and spending or not to do that. the question is, where do we start? do we start with slashing special interest waste and ineffective programs, or do we start with what helps the middle class, our businesses, our working families with children, and with seniors. you know, we could have achieved cutses.

we could have achieved cuts in spending in this continuing resolution. it was where the majority decided to start to make cuts. what about those oil subsidies that we spoke about tonight, $40 billion over five years and eliminating the 10 tax breaks for the oil companies? what about the $7.4 billion we can save over 10 years by shutting down the current practice that allows multinational corporations to avoid paying their taxes? what about cutting agricultural subsidies in half and saving $8 billion? what about the $3 billion a year we can spend by saying to the pharmaceutical companies that you can no longer pay to delay in order for us to get cheaper generic drugs to market because it raises the cost of health care.

let's do away with the $3 billion that we want to spend on an alternate engine for the joint strike fighter. that's about $61 billion. that is approximate the amount of money that you are taking out of, out of, k-12 education, pell grants where you lower the amount of maximum award that people can get. nine million people trying to get an education, trying to be able to get that education in order to be able to get a job and to go to work, take care of your family, pay their taxes and do the right thing. you say no. another $1.3 million. you say no to the supplemental education opportunity grant so that they no longer can get education. you take 218,000 kids off of head tart, you lay off 55,000 teachers, you close down centers around the country, and

you don't give youngsters the opportunity for early childhood education and we know that that succeeds. you tell seniors, up to 10 million, meals will no longer be served to you because you're a home bound elder. you can't get out. we're going to raise the cost. we're not going to do anything about low-income energy assistance for you. you're on your own. it is in fact washington p, to the country, drop dead is what you're saying to them. you're giving -- and all because there is no courage, no courage at all to go after the special interests and the tax subsidies that could overwhelmingly pay for the cuts that we need in order to be able to bring down the deficit. that is what's wrong with this bill tonight. the issue is where do you start?

do you start to cut in that reckless rush to slash without regard to the impact on our economy, without regard for our businesses to create jobs or the middle class or working families who are being responsible, they're doing the best for their families today. they're trying to educate themselves for the future. you are hitting families with children and the elderly and that is your starting point. it is not our starting point. therein lies the difference of democrats and republicans in this continuing resolution debate. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chair must remind members that remarks must be addressed to the chair and not to other members in the second person. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california, a member of the committee, arise? >> thank you, madam chair, i have an amendment the desk label 2d21. the chair: the clerk will read.

>> 221. the chair: the reading has not progressed to that portion of the bill. you will be recognized when we get to that. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 304, line 19, section 1847, section 505 of division f of public law 111-8, shall apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1848, the level for department of labor, occupational safety and health administration, salaries and expenses, $459,653,000. section 1849, the level for department of health and human services, national institutes of health, office of the

director, $1,128,800,000. section 1850, amount provided by section 1101 for the department of health and human services, national institutes of health is reduced $639,463,000. . section 1851, an unobligated balances available for department of health and human services, administration for children and families, refugees and entrant assistance, $77 million is rescinded. title 9, legislative branch, section 1901, the level for house of representatives hours and expenses -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. lee: thank you, madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 221 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of

california. >> madam chairwoman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you, madam chair. first, let me say, i offer this amendment in support of the unemployed workers across the country who are truly living in a state of emergency and who desperately need our assistance like right now. . this reminds me of a c.r. of survival of the fittest. nearly 600 amendments to the continuing resolution that has been proposed or considered so far, this amendment is the only one mind you, that deals with the unemployed directly. no wherein the continuing resolution does the majority try to address the needs of the unemployed whether to provide benefits or create jobs. the underlying resolution

estimated to cost 800,000 private and public sector jobs. the proposal would cut $2.5 billion from job training programs that they need to get back to work. the national unemployment rate stands at 9%. in california, in my home state, it's 12.5%. in ohio where the speaker is from, it's 9.6% and of course african americas and latinos and teenagers have higher unemployment rates up to 25.7%. all together, 13.9 million people are looking for work across the country. 6.2 million of them are classified as long-term unemployed and yet the republican response is to cut job training programs. just think about that for on

moment. how in the world does cutting job training programs put people back to work? i really can't figure out the logic of that. and i wonder how republicans will explain it to their unemployed constituents. you have unemployed constituents also. and so my amendment on the other hand is a very commonsense response to the unemployment in our country. would add language to the continuing resolution to a bill i introduced with bobby scott the emergency unemployment compensation act. this amendment and my bill would provide an additional 14 weeks of benefits to the existing tier one of the emergency unemployment compensation program in order to help unemployed workers who have exhausted their current benefits. these people have hit the wall. it includes an emergency

designation pursuant to the rules of the house and would not trigger a statutory pay-go rule. this is an emergency. every member has unemployed people in their districts, people who want a job, to work hard and sustain their families. that's all. they want to be part of this american job. but for every job opening there are 4.7 unemployed worker seeking to fill it. one job for every 4.7 unemployed workers. it's clear from that statistic that unemployment is not a problem of self-motivation but a symptom of a job deficit. it will take time to close that deficit and in the meantime, people have to survive. we have a moral obligation to help the long-term unemployed get through the crisis by extending their benefits now. their response to their bill has

been overwhelming. people from my district and people from your districts have been calling my office in support of this bill wanting to know when the republican majority will finally deal with the problem with the long-term unemployed and want to see a real plan from democrats and republicans. they don't want to hear the speaker say so be it. in fact, in seven weeks, we haven't seen one single effort to create a job. we haven't seen any legislation that would do that. now is your chance to step up to the plate and prove to them that your priorities don't lie with the rich and well connected. many of the unemployed are experiencing poverty for the first time as they try to make a dollar out of 15 cents. if we don't act now many will fall into poverty. i ask my republican colleagues, if you can insist on giveaways

to the wealthy, why can't you stand up to the unemployed who need our help the most. steppeding unemployment benefits is not only the right thing to do but contributes economic growth and job creation because they put what little they have back into the economy as they just try to get by day by day. i know my colleagues have reserved the point of order. don't resort to parliamentary maneuvers to block help to the unemployed. join me and let's provide an additional 14 weeks of benefits for those who have hit the wall. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: the gentleman from virginia wish to speak? >> i do. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. scott: i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: madam chair, we must acknowledge the passing of a continuing resolution will do nothing to create jobs and stuck with an unemployment rate of 9% and long-term unemployed who have exhausted their benefits. representative lee's amendment make it clear we have not forgotten about these individuals and their families and will ensure hard-work ing americans will have access to unemployment benefits. not only the right thing to do but will also help our economy. the u.s. economy grows by over $1.60 for every dollar the government spends on unemployment compensation because unemployed persons spend their benefits quickly. this $1.60 is in stark contrast to the economic activity generated by some of the tax cuts we passed last month. put simply, unemployment

compensation is one of the most efficient and effective ways to stimulate the economy. but extending is one approach to get the long-term unemployed back to work. many of the americans who have lost their jobs have lost jobs and not coming back, jobs shipped overseas and now require new skills. while unemployment compensation is the temporary solution, we need to be providing job training programs and jational training to help american workers develop the new in demand skills. unfortunately, this resolution actually cuts job training programs. we face very difficult choices when it comes to the federal budget and no easy solution to solve our budget prop problem. when i first came to congress in 1993, we considered a budget and passed a budget that by the end

of the eight years of the clinton administration, we not only eliminated the deficits but added surplus large enough to pay off the entire national debt two years ago. we would have owed no money to japan, china and saudi arabia and that led to record job growth but required tough choices and dozens of members who voted for that budget lost their seats. and contrast to the bush administration, we passed popular but huge tax cuts without paying for them, prescription drug benefit without paying for it, $700 bailout and cut taxes in the middle of two wars, all of which put us in the economic ditch. now in order to get the present deficits under control, we are going to have to make tough choices. unfortunately, the end of last year we made a move in the wrong direction when congress passed a

huge tax cut bill at the cost of $800 billion. to put that number in perspective, it exceeds the general fund budget of all 50 states. that's right, add it up. if you add up all the general fund budgets of the 50 states, comes up to a total of $650 billion, less than the cost of $800 billion tax cut bill. before the bill was passed, many of us asked how we were going to pay for it and nobody wanted to answer it. they focused solely on the nice tax cuts and now we are going to debate long list of spending cuts in the proposed resolution to pay for it. low-income energy assistance, women and infants nutrition, housing, investments in our future like nasa, pell grants, job training, clean water,

high-speed rail. these are the things we are cutting to pay for some of last year's tax cut bill. now american people are seeing how we are going to pay for it. last year we passed the tax cuts that gave great benefits to multi millionaires and now we are paying for it by inflicting pain on vulnerable portions of our population. we can do better and we need to fight against these cuts in programs that are so important to so many people and instead provide assistance where it helps not only individuals but helps the economy as the lee amendment does. the american people deserve better. we should support the lee amendment, but oppose the underlying legislation and i urge my colleagues to do just that. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: 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 an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment directly amends existing law and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone wish to speak on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change existing law. as such it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2-c of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? cools cools i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: i rise in disappointment that the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from california, ms. lee was not in order. while the republicans cut the heart out of necessary programs that would help people who have lost their jobs and lost their jobs through no fault of their own it actually stuns me how unaware they are how it is our very obligation in this house to help make families whole again, to help them meet what they have to do before when they can't find work. but of course it's up to the barbara lees and bobby scotts of this congress to insist that we provide a lifeline for hard-working families who have exhausted all of their benefits. it is particularly shameful, madam chair, that this is something we're even questioning after giving billions of dollars in deficit-busting tax cuts to the very wealthiest.

after extending those tax breaks for the affluent, how can they say we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits for families struggling to find jobs in this economy? the republican leadership has given a lot of lip service to creating jobs, but have yet to bring even one jobs bill to the floor. now, they have a chance to support emergency relief to millions of working families, a chance to extend unemployment benefits to help struggling families, which will also help end the recession because as was said a minute ago, getting people back to work will greet our economy going again because working is actually the first crucial step in reducing the deficit. actually unemployment insurance is a proven economic booster. according to the congressional budget office for every $1 spent

on unemployment insurance, economic activity increases by $2. the c.b.o. has found unemployment insurance to be one of the most cost effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. there is no shortage of work ethic in america, madam chair, there is a shortage of work. where is the majority party's job bill and the support for the millions of people who have exhausted all of their emergency unemployment benefits and desperately looking for employment? i urge my colleagues to provide additional unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have run out and the best thing you could do right now is help create jobs for america. thank you. i yield back. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. lee: i move to strike the

last word. the chair: the the gentlewoman is recognized a. -- the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: providing benefits for someone to survive shouldn't be the subject of my parliamentary order. that is a shame and disgrace. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: 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. mr. nadler: i won't speak for five minutes. i've been waiting for my amendment to come up, which it will in a couple of hours probably. but i have to make a comment on what we're hearing on the floor. we hear amendment after amendment to extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed at a time we have 9% unemployment. and it's struck down because there's no pay-for. we're not using -- the amendment provides no other means of paying for the unemployment insurance. for the last 50 or 60 years, it was never considered necessary in a time of recession and high unemployment, that in order to

extend unemployment benefits you had to find some place else to pay for it. it was automatic emergency spending until this republican congress. i hear amendment after amendment that's denied. we can't even formulate certain amendments because we can only increase -- not even increase spending, we can only restore draconian spending cuts on human services that are necessary for our people if we reduce other human services. but the tax cuts that we've seen, the huge tax cuts of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for our wealthiest citizens, at a time when the top 1% of our people, the richest 1% of our people have 41% of the income and almost half of the wealth in the country, we can't talk about increasing or restoring those tax cuts. those tax cuts are a given. mr. speaker, this is a culmination where we see $100

billion in cuts in spending in nondefense discretionary spending, spending on transportation that is necessary for our economies to be competitive, spending on research and development that is necessary if we're going to be able to create jobs, spending on schools and education and housing that is necessary for our people, spending on job training so our people can work, spending it on unemployment insurance so they can eat. all of these things must be cut in order that the wealthiest people have tax cuts, in order that the tax cuts for the oil companies not be disturbed. all of this is the culmination of a 30-year campaign by the republican party to starve the beast. ronald reagan's budget director, david stockman, i believe, coined the phrase starve the beast. he said and i pointed out if you come to the american people and you say we want to reduce certain services and want less money for transportation, the voters don't go along with

that. if p you say you want less money for education, the voters don't go along with that. but if you deliberately create a crisis, if you deliberately create a situation where there is no money by cutting the taxes of the rich so that they don't pay their fair share, you can create a crisis and then you come and say we can't afford this. we've got a budget deficit. we must reduce unemployment insurance. we must reduce schools and housing and transportation and the competitiveness of our economy, the jobs available for our people. we must reduce them because there's no money, then you can get away with it. and that is the plot that the republican party has been advancing for 30 years. and today we are seeing the culmination of that. today and in this congress. but remember what creates this necessity for these drastic cuts? the fact that we are unwilling to restore the tax cuts for the richest portion of our population. we are unwilling to take away the tax breaks for the oil

companies. we're unwilling to tax the large corporations as we used to. we're unwilling to have the rich pay a higher percentage of their income and taxes as their secretaries. that's what's really at stake here. but this debate is structured by the rules which have been imposed on this house which prevent us from bringing it all together in one debate. unfortunately it is not in order. the chair will rule if someone proposes to pay for the restoration of unemployment insurance by increasing a tax. or by cutting a war funding because it's not in the same bill, it's not in the same section of the bill. so the american people's representatives have our hands tied because we are prisoners of the construct constructed by the republican party that says let the rich have their tax cuts and the oil companies have their tax breaks and let the multinational companies exploit the jobs overseas and pay no taxes. we'll pay for it by robbing the

american people of transportation, of highways, of bridges, of unemployment insurance, of job creation, of education. that's what we're dealing with here and the debate should be looked on in the context of that, of the culmination of that 30-year plot by the republicans which we're seeing and which it was freely admitted by a lot of people, including -- starting with ronald reagan's budget director who started it. i yield back. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 306, title , legislative branch, section 1901, the level for house of representatives salaries and expenses, $1,288,299,072. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 108 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: madam speaker, this amendment is very simple. we're going through this process, or the continuing resolution, and we're trying to reduce spending to help bring down the federal debt which is now around $14 trillion. i might also say that i certainly want to commend chairman rogers, ranking member norm dicks and speaker boehner for allowing unlimited amendments to this continuing resolution. it certainly is an open process, and it's my understanding that over 700 amendments were printed in the record to give members an opportunity to represent their districts and try to bring spending under control. and i might say that's in direct contrast to when the health care bill was brought to the floor in the last congress, a bill 2,400 pages that had

direct impact on the health care throughout america, not one amendment was in order on the floor. so that -- there certainly is a contrast here of the way we're proceeding with the people's business. but this amendment basically simply removes $1.5 million from the greening of the capital project. there was a total of about $7 million in this project. the project is basically over with and there is approximate $1.5 million left. if we go on and eliminate the program now, that $1.5 million can be put directly to reducing the debt. now, some people would say, my gosh, $7 million is not much money but back in march of 2009, i wrote a letter to the architect of the capitol because one of the parts of the greening of the capital was to stop buying coal for the

capital power plant, and when they stopped buying coal for the capitol power plant, a coal mine in west virginia that was providing that coal closed down and those jobs were lost. the architect of the capitol in responding to my letter also indicated that by switching away from coal, the annual cost to the taxpayers of america went up between $7 million and $8 million a year. and that's an ongoing expense. and that does not include the conversion that had to take place with the capitol power plant. and we know at least $1.5 million was spent on the conversion. we do not know what additional funds were spent but the architect of the capitol said additional funds were spent. and i might add, there never was any discussion about this on the house floor. there was never any notice

given to the members about this but came about simply because speaker pelosi and senate leader harry reid wrote a letter to the architect of the capitol directing him to do so. so all we're doing with this amendment is trying to reduce our federal debt by $1.5 million, the greening of the capitol program is basically over with. in fact, the only thing they're doing now, according to the information i have, is they're calling around congressional district offices to go down there to see about buying more up-to-date light bulbs. i would respectfully request the members support this amendment and i would yield back -- shall i yield back the balance of my time or reserve my time? i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to strike the last word in -- and to respond to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. weiner: thank you very

much. i'm a big fan of mr. whitfield but he missed the big thing here and that is where in the portion of this budget where the legislative branch is funded, isn't this the opportunity to end the funding for the health care plan that so many members of congress get. so many members of congress get health care plans like the nine million federal employees and their workers where they get a booklet twice a year with different choices. and since there are so many workers they'ring a debated together to be able to hold down costs for all of them. this is exactly what the new health care plan that is going into effect for the american people seeks to do. now, the democrats said let's extend that to all americans. let's give everyone that opportunity. and my republican friends say no, that's government-controlled health care. this is your chance. don't blow it.

mr. whitfield is an important, prominent member of the energy and commerce committee, one of the most learned members of that committee. this is our chance to say, you know what, we're so against government-run health care we want to get rid of the federal employees health benefit plan. this is your moment. this is the time. let's do it. come on. let's put your money where your mouth is. >> madam chair? mr. weiner: the problem is here if you think about what's going on with the debate about health care and the big government run health care plan, it's really not that. it's really taking the number of uninsured people and giving them subsidies and incentives to go out and get private insurance, and because more people will have it, all of our costs come down. thing a gation that goes on in -- the aggregation that goes on. i should point out the mythology that's fancy -- no,

we're in the congressional health plan. it's like the enks change -- exchange will be in 2013 and 2014. here we are, we're on the floor and this is your opportunity, i respect mr. whitfield. i don't know much about the provision about what coal power plants are here but i do know that's here. why don't you step up and say we're opposed to government-run health care for members of congress? you know, it's funny, there was a member of actually -- as a member of congress on the republican side, and i forget his name, you'll forgive me, who campaigned all summer and fall against what they call obamacare and how outrageous it is, it's going to get to work with doing away with it and they had orientation for new members of congress and he stands up and says, when do i get my government health care plan? and when we started looking and asking questions, it turned out there are a lot of members of congress who rarely -- rail against other people getting

health coverage but really like that they get it, as they should. no one should give up their health care plan. people should get it. there was even a member of the new york delegation when asked about it, was asked, are you going to take the government health care plan you campaigned so hard against it? he said, of course. what happens if i have an accident and need health care, where am i going to get it? exactly. the same is true for a citizen who works hard. and by the way, of the uninsured, 75% of them have full-time jobs. it's not like they're slacking. they're hard-working americans. and so the health care plan that we provide is like members of congress, their staffs and nine million federal employees have and said, you know what, the more of us are covered, the more we can control costs, just like what the health care plan does. here it is, the moment has arrived in the bill and the silence is deafening. you can probably save a few dollars doing that, couldn't you, if you eliminated that. maybe this is the time to do it

and instead we're going to hear about amendments and mr. whitfield may be right. i don't know. i'll have to figure out how to vote on that. i'm not up on the coal power plants here. but i would hope all those people who deride government-funded, government-run health care will come down here. i guess while you're at it, you'll defund health care. that's the next thing, government-run health care. this is kind of your moment to do it. be consistent. be honest. . we took a plan that is founded on free market principles and said the employer-based model, we are going to have people get employer-based insurance. this is the moment in the bill that i would hope my republican colleagues come down and say let's get rid of that employee employment insurance plan that they benefit from or say i'm

taking it and here's why i'm contradicting what i said in the campaign. this is our time to do it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment. does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? for what purpose does? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> in the interest of time. mr. crenshaw: i rise in support of the amendment of the the gentleman from kentucky. i think it's a good amendment and i encourage my colleagues to support it. and i yield back my time. the chair: does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. berman: strike the last word. mr. honda: just a word against the amendment. the amendment reduces the house of representatives' budget by

$1.5 million which brings the total reduction to 82 million. the gentleman says it cuts dollars from energy, but that's what it does. it affects the budget and services of the house. i want to be clear on this. shortsighted strategy to handicap the legislative branch of government by reducing our staffs here. we are an equal branch of government and must serve our constituents. not only is his motive flawed, energy saves. the house has installed 13,000 energy-saving flores ent light bulbs and saving $1.1 million hours annually. this project has saved taxpayers

$446,000 and projected to produce $178,000 annually into the future. we get return on our investments of the 6789 consolidating computer services has dramatically saved energy. this project has saved taxpayers over $1 million and projected to save $800,000 annually. returning us back on the return of investment, all energy projects have saved and projected to save $9 million annually. once it is completed. while i know cuts are needed, i would prefer if the congress focuses its time on policies that accomplish deficit reduction. if the gentleman wants to cut energy funding and we are looking at our budget it's what the architect of the capital's

budget. so there's a misfocus on the target. if the gentleman wants to cut energy funding, he should join this side of the aisle and end the big oil subsidies and let's work towards real deficit reduction. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment its agreed to. >> madam speaker. the chair: for what purpose does -- the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 306 line 12,

section 902, level house of representatives, house leadership offices shall be $24,860,000 -- >> i ask the bill page 312 be considered read and open to amendment at any point. the chair: the gentleman reserves the right to object. mr. honda: i don't have any objection. mr. honda: i have no objection, madam chair. the chair: does the gentleman from new york have an objection? is there an objection to the request from the the gentleman from florida? >> no objection.

the chair: wote objection, so ordered. any amendments to that -- without objection, so ordered. any amendments to that portion of the bill? the clerk will read. >> a point of order. the chair: for what purpose does does the gentleman rise? mr. weiner: what point are we now in the reading? unanimous consent, just so i understand where we are now. the chair: page 312, line 10. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 312, line 10, military construction, veterans affairs and related agencies, section 2001 --

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: i ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 319 line 25 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: any objections to the gentleman's request? without objection, so ordered. are there any amendments to that section of the bill? if not, the clerk will read. the clerk: page 320, line 1, title 11, state foreign operations and related programs. section 2101 for purposes of this title, division 111-17, related programs, appropriations act, 2010. mr. berman: madam chairman, i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. berman: it seems to me that in this competition to see who can cut the most and the fastest, we are losing all sense of reason and rationality. i'm concerned by what i see happening to the international affairs budget which is contained in this title 11 of the bill before us. in the past, the state department and foreign appropriations bill has passed with strong bipartisan support often by an overwhelming margin. members of both parties understood how important diplomacy and development are not only to u.s. standing in the world but to our country's own economic growth, to american jobs and to american national security. they recognize problems such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of deadly disease cannot be resolved unilaterally. they know that over the long-term, the best way to

create more jobs at home is to build more export markets overseas and understand we defeat violent extremism by military means alone and secretary gates said, development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers. the process by which this c.r. is being produced makes a mockry that we as members of congress have to protect our national security. first, the republican leadership announced a plan to make $44 billion in cuts then we started hearing other numbers, $74 billion, $100 billion, it is measured a different way. and no matter how high the number goes there are proposals to cut even deeper. these numbers weren't chosen because they looked at programs and said here's something that's not working or something we don't need to do. no, the number was plucked out

of a hat, unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was needed and how much that cost. this bill isn't about making government more cost effective or more efficient and and doesn't create streamlining to ensure our aid reaches that who need it most. it is a/and burn process hacking away without consideration for all the critically important work that's being destroyed or how it affects our national security. the base bill itself might be laughable if it weren't so appalling. humanitarian programs to provide assistance, food, water and medicine and plastic sheeting to victims of hurricanes, ace is cut by 50%. do we sit by as women, man and child starve to

. >> general david petraeus said it well in a 2009 letter to o.m.b. i write to underscore the the importance the u.s. is pursuing in iraq and afghanistan. while i've long been a reader of usip analytical products which is second to none in tracking the challenges we face in both countries and in outlining policy options, i have more recently been impressed with u.s. i.p.'s on the ground peace building efforts. usip efforts working closely with the u.s. military will be a great asset in developing stronger unity of effort between civilian and military elements of government. former secretary of state george shultz in a february 15,

2011 letter echoed the comments of general petraeus by saying, we are in the most profound period of change in international affairs since the end of the cold war. and the institute is a small and agile operation that's demonstrated a unique capacity to innovate and approaches in managing conflicts abroad that reflect u.s. interest. madam chair, i have great respect for both general petraeus and former secretary of state george shultz. the c.r. already reduces usip's appropriation by over 6%. i cannot support further cuts and urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jackson: the u.s. government simply must have options for solving

international conflict other than military action or international diplomacy. usip is the only independent u.s. government actor that is dedicated solely to conflict mediation and revolution. for example, in afghanistan and iraq, the usip has been on the ground since the beginning of the conflicts actively bringing together parties to the conflict and building an agenda for the resolution of conflicts resulting in less need for the american troops and paving the way for stabilization efforts. general petraeus called usip's work in iraq a striking success. this is what they've done to deal with the challenges. a joint program with the u.s. army combined center in fort leavenworth to convene multiple agencies and help those

confronting those in another massive handoff in afghanistan. comprehensive training for the u.s. department of defenses ministry of advisors program, moda going out to serve with general caldwell, the commander of training forces in afghanistan. usip, madam chair, is a small, agile center in support of american national security, funding for it obviously should not be eliminated today. and i want to draw from a letter that governor -- i'm sorry, general petraeus, the general of the united states army commanding forces in afghanistan most recently wrote to rob goldberg, the director of international affairs at n.s.p. he says, and he extrapolate, usip's experience in working closely with the u.s. military will be a great asset in developing unity of effort

between levels of the government. i hope soon to see u.s. military officers training alongside civilian government and nongovernment counterparts in usip's headquarters at 23rd and constitution, the wonderful building of my colleague mr. weiner pointed out to us moments ago. their facility is not an important symbol of our nations commit to peace but home to a wonderful training center to increase understanding in today's complex operations. . therefore getting access to our military leaders who are fighting abroad and i yield my time to the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: the things we are doing on behalf of the department of defense. is the gentleman aware that in addition to the money i have identified here $135 million from d.o.d. and state department, that they already get grants to do that work. the money i'm seeking to cut is

above that. is the gentleman aware of that? mr. jackson: i'm aware of that. this money is not wasted money but designed to provide our military officers and civilian sectors in different war zones in afghanistan and iraq with the opportunity to interact. this is not the responsibility of the pentagon. this is not what the pentagon does. so our military personnel on the ground having access to civilian sectors in society and helping them to transition, conflict resolution. our critical part of our long going mission in afghanistan and i yield to the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: does the gentleman not believe the foreign policy research institute or the other institutes that do similar work that don't live in this building -- i mean the question is not whether they are good but whether they should have this

status that puts them primary among all think tanks. mr. jackson: let me say that while i recognize the importance of the other think tanks and the work they do in achieving peace, the united states government also has an obligation to work directly with civilian sectors in various combatant zones and what is the united states government commitment to peace. that is manifested through the u.s.i.p., not through other foundations or other means by which peace may be maintained. and i thank the gentleman for engaging in the debate. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. rehberg: i move to strike the last word. --

>> after years of massive deficit spending, we must look for ways to reign in washington's out of control spending and getting our fiscal house back in order. that begins by cutting unnecessary and repetitive programs like the u.s. institute for peace. make no mistake, i believe that the institute's goals are important and honorable. who among us does not wish for peace, both for ourselves and for future generations of americans. but given our current fiscal constraints i cannot justify spending $42 million to pay for an organization whose role could be fulfilled by existing departments, agencies or nonprofit organizations, many of which do not depend on federal government funding. this program has been on auto pilot with no congressional oversight since it was created over 5 years ago. the taxpayers have spent over

$700 million to fund the redundant organization. enough is enough. the people of northeast minnesota sent me, like many of my freshman colleagues to washington because they are tired of unaccountable government wasting their hard-earned dollars and borrowing it. i'm proud to note that this amendment was supported by the citizens against government waste, a nonpartisan group whose mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement and inefficiency in the federal government. they know an unnecessary program when they see it. for example, in the building for the institute for peace and this is from their web site. there will be a contemplation area that will be a quiet setting where visitors can reflect on their global journey through a peace-building center and combining a soothing water element with a generous gathering.

visitors will take time to consider the recent experience. a peace of slate across which flows a thin sheet of water that spills off into a table into a bool below. including are areas of theater and pass the peace building a game will illustrate the winding path to peace filled with challenges and obstacles. determines will determine the best route to take to reach a peaceful conflict. opportunities for moving the peace process forward and dangers of backsliding are losing ground. in response to president reagan signing this into existence, what occurred is a former representative had an insertion that title 17 which then president reagan signed. general petraeus, i also agree, signed in 2007 commending this

organization, but that was several years ago and since then, we have had no oversight. in closing, this is a real tangible cut we can make today. eliminating this funding and returning the money to the taxpayers is one way we can show we are serious about getting down to business and righting our fiscal ship. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. with that, i withdraw my motion and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. chaffetz: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chaffetz: one of the great urgencies we have is to get our fiscal house in order. we are paying more than 600 million a day and our debt is $14 trillion and when we have an opportunity, an obligation to

point out redid you understand dancies win our government we have to act upon it and the united states institute of peace is clearly one of those opportunities where we cite redundancy and we don't need someone competing with the state department. they do great work in many different areas and have raised millions and millions of dollars from grants, but also more importantly from the outside world and this is an opportunity for us to actually scale this back and allow that transition to happen. now some will say it's just another $40 million and not going to make a big enough dent in the debt. the reality is we have to do small things and they add up over the course of time. these appropriations that have happened year after year after year in auto pilot and have now cost the taxpayers in excess of

$700 million. we are about to approach $1 billion in the shadows of the state department. their mission is to do what the united states institute of peace is trying to do. if they are able to add to the equation, then they surely with the letters they get from general petraeus and the former secretary of state can go out that and use that in that effort. but for us, to go back into the taxpayers' walts and pull money out and give it in favor of this particular institution, in contrast to what cato and heritage and all these other organizations that have been identified previously is not fair and not right. and in this case, i would argue -- i would urge my colleagues to understand the redundancy that is going on here and say please, this is an opportunity where we

can truly make a cut. i appreciate the great work that representative from new york, mr. wiener has done and the gentleman from minnesota has spoken to this. i concur. and i would be happy to yield. >> there seems to be some confusion about the role of the state department and the role of the institute of peace. the state department is responsible for diplomacy and institute of peace is the only institute that the united states of america has on the ground that stands in peace in conflict areas, sustainable peace. mr. jackson: gentleman comment on us on difference between diplomacy and peace. peace is not the responsibility of the state department. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chaffetz: i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: peace is not -- mr. jackson: plomeds. mr. weiner: diplomacy not towards making a grilled cheese sandwich but making peace. we are parsing here. the fact of the matter it is a

nonprofit think tank and pursuing is a good thing. we aren't against pursuing peace. when we are apportioning federal dollars in the budget do we say to one institute you are going to get money and another you do not. you are going to get a building and you aren't going to get one and that's the only question. the idea there is only one and maybe mr. chaffetz can speak to this, only one think tank pursuing peaceful outcomes, you know that's not the case. mr. jackson: reclaiming my time. mr. chaffetz: it is the goal of the united states of america and everyone to achieve peace. we are a peaceful nation, the president, the commerce, the department of defense, the overall goal of the united states of america is to achieve peace and anyone trying to pursue anything other than

peace, i would take issue with that. if the would yield. mr. weiner: a lot of us are like, why would you want to defund with anything with peace in its name. it is an anethema. mr. jackson: once the conflict in afghanistan is over and we have an embassy in iraq and afghanistan, it is not the responsibility to be response -- responsible for the conflicts. the institute of peace has a very different role than that of the state department in a combat zone. there is a very different role for the institute of peace. mr. weiner: i would say to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. berman: madam chairman, i plan to vote against this amendment. i just want to make two points. one, mr. wiener's argument, the gentleman from new york's argument is very good if in fact institute of peace was another think tank. if it were, then why shouldn't they compete like other think tanks do for projects and contracts through the discretionary funds of the appropriate agencies and decide it on that basis. but the u.s. institute of peace is not just the brookings institute or the heritage foundation, it's more of a do tank than think tank. it engages specifically in projects. projects. the second that