support of h.r. 1363, the troop funding bill. it's unfortunate that we have to be here in this way today, but we have no choice because of the inaction of the other side from last year. this bill will provide much needed certainty for our troops in the field and would keep the government opened for another week. it also makes $10 billion -- $12 billion in cuts in other programs. most of which were proposed by the president and by the democrats. the cuts that we are talking about that are so supposedly draconian out of a $3.6 trillion budget, we can't cut $12 billion apparently. w, many in the senate would like to seehe department of defense budget used as an offset to continue the spending binge we are on here in washington, but we cannot allow our troops to be used as a bargaining chip in negotiation. it's time to take the department of defense off the table and fund our troops for the rest of

this year. our brave men and women in the field engaged in three different wars, one just started again by this president, around the globe and they deserve to know that they have the full support of this congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen's time has expired. mr. rogers: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. latham: we owe it to those sacrificg for us both home and abroad to ensure there is not an interruption of their pay. this measure continues to show the house republicans' commitment to our men and women in uniform. and while protecting the cause of freedom around the world as well as our commitment to fiscal sanity in cutting spending while keeping the government open. if this is reject the by the house and senate democrats and thehite house, it's amazing the commander in chief of the military is going to veto a bill that will fund his troops. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. latham: i never heard anything more outrageous. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. israel, who is a former member of the appropriations committee doing great things in his new job. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. israel: i thank my friend. i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, republicans came to washington promising to change the way washington works, and what do they give us? this political stu of a resolution. they came to the majority in 1994 and shut down the government. they came back to the majority in 2010 and they want to shut down the government, and they want to ble democrats for doing that. the american people see right through this. they know that you demanded $73 billion in cuts and we agreed to $73 billion in cuts. now you're saying you want more. they know that not only do you want more, but you want to add restrictions on a woman's right to choose. they keep moving the goal posts

further and further to the far, far, far, far right. and it is enough. now, i keep hearing my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about their concern about debt and deficits, and we aee. let me remind my friend on th other side of the aisle that several weeks ago we offered an amendment that would have reduced spending by asking the top five richest oil companies in america just to forgo this year's portion of their tax subsidy. and they said no. let me remind my friends that several weeks ago we offered to reduce spending by eliminating funding for the bridge to nowhere, and they said no. . they seep keep spending on the top five richest oil companies, keep spending on the bridge to nowhere, but privatize social security, make senior citizens tighten their belt, make them

sacrifice, but when it comes to our friends in the special interests, spend, spend, spend. we see through it, the amerin people see through it. it's time to do what we offered to do, meet you where you wanted to meet us until you moved those goal posts. enough, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind the members that remarks in debate must be addressed to the chair and not to other members in the second person. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: may i inquire as to the time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 16 and a half -- has 16 1/2 and the gentleman from washington has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to one of my hard working subcommittee chairmen on propings, the chairman of the interior subcommittee, the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. simpson: there's a way to avoid the consequences of a government shutdown my friend just talked about a few minutes, that's to pass this c.r. and put it on the president's desk so he will sign it. i believe he will sign . the gentleman from north carolina said this could have been avoided. he's absolutely right, this could have been avoided. it could have been afreuded by when the democrats controlled the house and the senate and the presidency last year actually passing a budget or passing an appropriations bill on the floor of the house. guess what? that never happened you left us with thises me and now you complain about the way we're trying to clean it up. the gtleman also said this is an ideological position on which the republicans will not yield. he's right. and that ideological position is this country is in a fiscal crisis and ware going to get our house back in order. if that's the pgs -- if that's

the position we're being criticized for, i welcome that criticism. nobody want this is government to be shut down. frankly, there's absolutely no reason to shut down the government, the smart thing to do would bto pass the one-week c.r.hat saves the taxpayers $12 billion and addresses the duel goal ifes dressing the fiss -- the dual goals of addressing the fiscal crisis we're in and it funds the troops for the rest of the year, enables our congressional leaders in the white house -- and we the white house to cross tht's and dot the i's on the spending bill. many of these spend regular duckses are those that were submitted to congress in his f.y. 2011 or f.y. 2012 budgets. these are spend regular ducks that will probably be in any final agreement that is made between republicans and democrats system of the $12

billion is not extreme. it will be in the final agreement, whatever that agreement is. there's absolutely no reason why the senate cannot pass this bill and extend -- and send it to the white house. i believe if you put on the president's desk, he'll sign society our troops are funded. i yield back. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i apologize. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, who can explain why part of this c.r. is very ideologically driven and extreme. the speaker pro tempore: the jerusalem is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentlemafor his efforts. i'm here to say to my good friends on the other side, it's one thing to beat up on the district of columbia, it's another thing to drop a bomb on the city. that's what this c.r. does. it takes the route of

authoritarian government and dictatorship, by dictating to a local government how it may spend its local funds and it may force the district of columbia government to shut down, although our government had a balanced budget, has had it since last spring, passed, has been passed by the committees in this house, but because the congress can't figure out how to pass its own budget, it now threatens to close down the local budget of the district of columbia which esn't have a dime in this bget, only local funds, my amendment could have avoided all of this by allowing local funds to continue to be spent by the district of columbia. the other side is engaged in many attacks on the city's right to self-government, from taking my vote in the committee

of the whole, approved by federal courts, to their ride for the h.r. 1. but thr attack on local self-government is a virtual taking of our local funds by not allowing the city to use its own money to keep its own local government running. worse, there's an attempt to use the district of columbia as a bargaining chip in these negotiations. there have been no riders in prior congressional resolutions. shamefully, the district of columbia here is paired with a rider that no prisoners can be brought into the united states with another that says d.c.'s local funds shall be captured by keeping the city -- may i have 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. norton: by keeping the city

from spending its local funds on abortion, how much more content can you show for those who live in the nation's capital. if they're going to require members to cite the constitution in introducing legislation, i ask them to stop tearing up the constitution and throwing it in the faces of the american citizens who live in the nation's capital. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i think the geleman wants me to do another speaker, i recognize the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for two additional minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. dicks.

there is somethinge have to acknowledge, whatever side of the issue we're going to vote on. we are playing with fire. a government shutdown will have two consequences, one the obvious that folks who depend on governmental services will be enormously inconvenienced. contractors owed money from the federal government won't be paid. our citizens are going to be adversely hurt and folks who work honestly and hard every day for the federal government are going to be out of a job. that's significant. but what's really significant in the long-term is that this is sending a signal to the world, not just america, that the american political process is fundamentally broken. if we're unable to reach an agreement on a one-week continuing resolution to keep government going, one of the prospects for us when -- what are the prospects for us when we face the challenge of a budget next year?

what are the prospects for us when we face the challenge that looms ahead of us in maye of raising the debt ceiling so that america can honor the obligions that it has to pay its bills? when the world begins to lose confidence that america's political process can functi, it is going to have a very dramatic and negative impact on the economy, interest rates are going to go up because the cost of borrowing will go up because the anxiety about whether america meets its obligations will increase. we are playing with fire here. the biggest problem i have with the proposals tt have been made fiscally on the other side in my view, is that they're designed to fail. it's not that there isn't a legitimate concern about spending and getting our fiscal house in order. you're right about that. we share that. but if we're going to get from here to there, you cannot

attack 100% of the problem on the budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: chairman simpson a moment ago referred and reminded us that we're in this mess that we're in because the other side when they controlled the house last year failed to pass a single appropriations bill. and left the mess in our hands when we took over in january. that reminds me a little bit, and now they're complaining about the way we're trying to clean up their mess. it reminds me a bit of abraham lincoln bacin illinois when he was practicing law, spoke of a man who was accused of killing his parents. and in court, made a plea that he was -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rogers: made a plea he was an orphan.

i yield two minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on our full committee, the ntlelady, mrs. emerson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized. mrs. emerson: i rise in support of this resolution and really want to express, i believe, the opinion of all of us that we do not want the federal goverent to shut down becausdoing so means abrogating our responsibility. our responsibility to serve the american people from both the legislative and executive bramblings. we've -- branches. we've all talked about how it means the men and women in uniform will face the uncertainty of serving without pay. your phones must be ringing like mine are because we are hearing from so many military families we represent, they're facing uncertainty on top of uncertainty, posted overseas or with a family member away on active duty, in harm's way, they're trying to keep their

households intact. and the president would veto such a piece of legislation? and so, this measure achieves two important goals. it assure ours military operations and the pay of our military and the pay of our military members are not interrupted and provides us another week to continue negotiations. no one in this congress should mistake this for easy work because it isn't. we're attempting to reduce discretionary spending from historic heights, control the growth and scope of government and give our children a future where the necessary functions we enjoy today exist for them tomorrow. we're also attempting to endow them with a future in which they can enjoy low taxes, keep more of what they earn and invest in new ideas and opportunities, those things that made our nation great. the negotiators and staff members on both sides of this effort are working late hours, weekends, and i'm convinced we all want to get this right but

it would be re helpful if we could agree to work and find consensus instead of ripping apart a one-week bill that funds our troops. i'm not the only one to notice we began the budget process for 2012 this week. at the very moment when we're trying to r.v. -- resolve our responsibilities for 2011. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is expir. mr. rogers: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. emerson: i hope we can achieve that goal this week to move on to the next order of business, serbing the people we represent through the budget process and making difficult desions to curtail spending when we can't afford, we shouldn't borrow and we sure don't want our children and grandchildren to pay the bill when it comes due. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's -- gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes

to the distinguished gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur, the most senior woman in the house of representatives and on the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank our distinguished ranking member, mr. dicks, for yielding me this time. madam speaker in our tender economy, where job creation should be our top priority, this flawed legislation moves us backwards. it gives us -- gives no confidence to the markets that anyone here in the majority knows what they are doing. this bill is partial, it is short-term, and it is a selective bill that leaves the vast majority of budget choices off the table. it is irresponsible. it selects only some of our valiant fighting forces, some would say uses them, and extends paychecks for some through the end of september.

but it leaves out the majority of americans who expect good government out of this congress to assure economic growth and a continued recovery. the american people are sick and tired of political antics. let me point out this bill is so flawed, it leaves out the veterans who come home and can't get work and are lined up with their falies at food banks across this country. this resolution leaves out decisions regarding food supplies to those pantries so essential to holding life together for our veterans and for millions of other americans. what about those vets lined up to exercise their g.i. benefits at local community colleges? this resolution turns its back on those veterans' educational funding at community colleges. . what about those vets with

disabilities? this resolution turns its back on them and those adjudication judges that also get paychecks from the government of the united states to do their job. let me urge the majority to do what the american people sent us here to do and that is to govern. to govern for all. not leave anyone out. not leeven or -- leave our veterans out. not leave the vast majority of americans out. i ask my colleagues to defeat this flawed resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to a member of our committee, and a good one, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you, madam speaker. passing this measure is absolutely the responsible thing to do. we are on the brink of an affordable and potentially disrupted shutdown. first and foremeese we ensure our troops are funded for their service to the nation. let's get that done.

but the american people elected us to ensure the federal government runs effectively and efficiently and allowing even a temporary shutdown is a failure of our most basic responsibility as members of congress. let's not forget the reason we are here today and this in predicament. it's the inability of the democratic leadership last year to pass a budget, didn't even try, and they failed to complete any of the appropriations bills. senator schumer has made it quite clear that a government shutdown is in his political interest. perhaps that's why the senate isn't doing anything. you overwhelm have two paces over there, slow and glacial. today was a new day in the senate. they started slowly and winding down fm there. i wish they get to work anpass an appropriations bill. we passed an appropriations bill. they passed nothing. we either get this done. it's important to fund the troops, keep the government opened. i yield back. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: how much time d we have on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has eight minutes remaining.

and the gentleman from kentucky has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. dicks: would the gentleman like to go ahead with a couple more speakers at this juncture? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to a brand new member of our committee and hardworking one at that, the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. austria: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding and his great leadership. just a reminder why we are standing here again debating another c.r. on this floor is because the democrat leadership in the last congress did not fulfill the mostasic function that we have in the united states congress, and that is passing a budget or a single appropriations bill. as a member of this appropriations committee, i am pleased that today we have a c.r. bill that will have another $12 billion worth of cuts.

and that as importantly will fund, fully fund the department of defense for the rest of this fiscal year. 47 days ago that we passed a bill in this house that would have kept government opened, that would have cut $100 billion from the president's 2011 budget and fully fund our troops through the end of 2011. any bill we pass must include full funding for our men and women serving in our military. i represent wright patterson air force base, one of the largest air force facilities in the contry, they can be forced to furlough many of its 27,000 military civilians and contractors. we have to pass the c.r. budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. is the gentleman from shington continuing to reserve? mr. dicks: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield one minute to another new member of our committee and a

new member of congress, he's doing a great job, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman om mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. nunnelee: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. we are engaged in a budget battle for the future of our country. but we have the freedom to engage in that battle because of the brave men and women at have their lives on the line fighting for that frdom. have we forgotten? only 10 years ago there are those who would have destroyed this very building and disrupted these proceedis by an act of terror. and we have men and women today fighting to make sure that those acts of terror are never repeated. that's their mission. and it's unconscionable that we would send men and women into harm's way and not fund their efforts. that's why we need topass this bill because if we do, we will have the liberty to pursueour

mission while our men and women in uniform have the liberty to pursue theirs. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i remind the gentleman that if we had a clean c.r. the troops would also be taken care of, and a clean c.r. would be signed into law by the president of the united states so it would be effective. what is being proposed today will be vetoed. the president has already sent a statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes tohe distinguished gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, who is a distinguished member of this institution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member and i thank the

members on this floor today. i believe that this is one of the most serious debates that we will have in the history of this congress. it is whether or not america belongs to all people and not special interests. coming from the state of texas, i can tell you that statistics will say that we probably have the ghest number of men and women serving in the united states military, a large numr of bases, a large number of veterans, and we well know of the values of those men and women who sacrifice and lead their families -- leave their families and go overseas. but i said yesterday onhe floor of the house we have values. as my colleagues have said, can we say it one more time, we will support a clean c.r. to pay our troops, to pay their families, to keep the doors of our hospitals opened, to provide medicare for our seniors and medicaid, and education for our

children, but, no, friends on the other side are strangled by special interests, pickett signs, and loud shouts about shut it down. the president has already said he will veto this silly legislative initiative. why are we in the midst of a serious budget debate, by the way the ryan budget that has been put out by the republicans will deny 66% of citizens -- seniors off of medicare. they will be off. we will not balance the budget under the ryan budget until 2040. it will caus $8 trillion more debt. it's hard for america to understand this complicated process. it seems confusing, but my friends, we are talking about last year. where people have already committe making commitments to pay their bills like you would make commitments, then in the middle you would be shortchanged or cut off. where's the heart on the other side? yes, yesterday i said shut the

government down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. jackson lee: this is wrong-headed, misdirected. i ask you to vote it down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute, madam speaker, to the gentleman from alabama, a member of the armed services committee, mr. brooks. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. brooks: thank you, madam speaker. let's remind everybody why we are here. we are here because we are trying to save our federal government from unsustainable budget deficits. during the regime, the regime of nancy pelosi as house speaker and majority leader over in the senate, harry reid, we have had four consecutive budget deficits that average $1.2 billion a year. those are unsustainable. they threaten our federal government solvency. we are facing a national bankruptcy. so what are we trying to do today? we are trying to protect our troops who are in afghanistan

and iraq so that they don't have to worry about whether their homes are going to be foreclosed on as ty are off doing battle and their kids and wives are at home. that's what this bill -- no, i will not yield. we have people from alabama who are -- a lady who has two young children age 3 twins and she's fighting on behalf of our country. we have soldiers that i met in afghanistan and iraq that are fighting on our behalf. and i ask that this house and this senate do what we should do and that is protect our troops by funding this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brooks: don't believe them in the position where they are not able -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: madam speaker, does the gentleman from kentucky have further speakers?

why don't we -- why don't you go ahead. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i reserve my time. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers? mr. dicks: i have one speaker. that's me to finish. st speaker. you have the right to close as i understand it. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana for three nutes, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the department of defense and further continuing appropriations act. this one-week continuing resolution will fully fund the department of defense for the remainder of the fiscal year and reduce government spending by $12 billion and it is worthy of

the support of every member of congress. look, no one wants a government shutdown. but if we don't take a stand for fiscal discipline in washington, d.c., we are going to shut down -- mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. pence: i respectfully will not. to be honest with you, i'm frustrated that we are here again with another stopgap measure. i'm frustrated that liberals in the senate continue to resist efforts to accept even modest budget cuts in this year's budget. we are talking about a 2% reduction in this year's budget. that's unacceptable to the liberals down the hallway. it seems like liberals in the senate would rather shut the gornment down than accept a 2% cut in the federal budget. it seems like liberals in the senate would rather shut the government down so they can continue to borrow money from china to fund the largest abortion provider in america. but in this moment i'm going to

support this resolution because the troops come first. we cannot put fiscal battles ahead of support for those who are currently engaged in america's real battles. this c.r. reaffirms our commitment to our troops. it fully funds d.o.d. for the balance of the year and reaffirms our commitment to our most cherished ally, israel, during these uncertain days. earlier this week senator reid said the biggest gap in negotiations is between republicans and republicans. nothing could be further from the truth. the biggest gap in these negotiations over a possible government shutdown are between liberals here in washington, d.c., and the american people. that's where the gaps lie. the american people want to restore fiscal discipline and provide for the common defense and they know we can do it. today senator reid took to the floor of the senate and called this very resolution, quote, a sure-fire way to shut down the government. and astonishingly the commander

in chief has threatened to veto a bill tt would fund our troops at a time of war. astonishing. look, we are going to pass this continuing resolution. we are going to fund our troops in harm's way and stationed all across the world and all across this nation. and if democrats here in washington would rather play political games and shut down the government, than support our troops, defend our treasury, and respect r values then i say shut it down. and i'm certain the american people are going to know who to blame. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i have one remaining speaker and i would yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: somebody besides

yourse or is it yourself? mr. rogers: i have one speaker onhe way over. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from washington prepared to close? mr. dicks: how much time do i have remaining? the speakepro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 5 3/4 minutes. mr. dicks: i want -- i yield myself 4 3/4 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 4 3/4 minutes, is recognized for 4 3/4 minutes. . mr. dicks: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dicks: i want to make sure that everyone heard the statement of administration policy that was submitted today. the administration opposes house passage of h.r. 1363, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes.

as the president stated on april 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant process -- progress, the administration would support a short-term clean continuing resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill. for the past several weeks the administration has worked diligently in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. after giving the congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, which by the way many of us voted for, the president believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. this bill ia distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and further disrupting a government shutdown that would put the nation's economy, economic recovery in jeopardy. the administration will continue to work with congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the government for

the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job creation and that averts a costly government shutdown. it is critical that the congress send a final bill to the president's desk that provide certainty to our men and women in military unifm. therefore, families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers and all americans. h.r. 1363 simply delays the critical phenomenal outcome. if presented with this bill -- critical final outcome. if presented with the bill the president will veto it. i think the president is right. what i suggested yesterday in the rules committee and to our chairman was that we go forward with a clean c.r. which we have done many times tt would allow the president to sign this and us to finish our work. i would much have preferred if the clean c.r. was at a point when the president, the speaker and the majority leader had all agreed and, you know, said we're done, we needed a little more time to do the paperwork.

but that is not the situation that we're in. i also want to reiterate with a clean c.r. the troops will be paid and they will receive -- they will receive their checks as they should. and this -- the defense part of the bill i worked on. it's a good piece of legislation. when you throw in the district of columbia abortion issue it really shows that you're not serious, and that's why -- and that's why the american people i think believe that this is ideology and not people working together in a commonsense way to get this thing resolved. and do i still have time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has about 3/4 of a minute. mr. dicks: again, i'm worried what we're doing in terms of economic policy that, again, the magnitude of these cuts are going to have a negative effect on the economy. we need to create more jobs to

lower the deficit and put people back to work. i urge us to defeat this bill and i reserve the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining on my side, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: and am i correct, mr. dicks, you have no further speakers? the speaker pro mpore: and the gentleman from washington has two minutes remaining. mr. dicks: i believe the democratic whip may want to propound a question to the chairman. so i'm not going to yield back my time until he has an opportunity to do that. mr. rogers: i think it's that timef it's to cur. mr. dicks: do you want to do it

now? mr. rogers: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished democratic whip, my good friend, mr. hoyer. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to ask the chrman if he will yield to me for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request that we proceed with what we would call a clean c.r. which would provide for the funding of the troops, provide for the funding of all government agencies at the levels of that we are currently at which, of course, involve all the cuts that have been made to date in the last two c.r.'s that we passed and for which ivoted? this will provide, i tell my friend, the reason i want to profound this unanimous consentit will in fact provide for a document, an act

to pass this house that i believe will in fact pass the senate and will in fact be signed by the president. as a result, we will protect our troops and we will potect all other services that government has available for the american people. and i ask my friend if he wi yield to me for that purpose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland's time has expired. mr.icks: i yield tohe gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i think i have concluded, madam speaker, asking the chairman whether he will yield to me for purpose of making that unanimous consent so that we could in fact have an act pass this house that we know would be signed by the president and will protect the troops and will keep the government open. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, what thgentleman is asking if we would -- we will continue the status quo. we do not and cannot accepthe

status quo. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is out of time. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield simply for me to clarify my request? mr. dicks: i yield my remaining time to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky controls the time. mr. hoyer: i understand that. will the gentleman yield for me to clarify the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman -- mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, a new member of this body, one minute. the speakepro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: will the gentlewoman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. buerkle: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of this bill, the bill to fund our tros. the last congress failed to pass a budget and that's why

we're here, that's why we're debating these c.r.'s. this ctinuing resolution is the right outcome, not only for the american people but for our military. this isn't a democratic or a republan issue. this is what's best for the american people and most iortantly what's best for our troops. give them certainty, give them what ty need to keep us safe and allow us to be here today with this debate. i thank you and i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized in place of the gentleman from washington. >> madam speaker, if the very distinguished chair of e committee wants to yield back we'll yield back as well. mr. moran: in the spirit of comity.

i yield -- mr. rogers will close. mr. rogers: if the gentleman will yield, i have one other speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i recognize the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. griffin: thank you, madam chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. brave men and women are in harm's way taking the fight to our enemies around the world. for families here at home they're doing all they can to keep a brave face and keep their family going. sadly, because of the senate's inactionthese families face an even greater challenge. unless the senate changes course and listens to the american people, our u.s. military families will soon not receive their paychecks. for my home state of arkansas we have over 5,000 active duty service members as well as 246

army national guardsmen deployed to afghanistan and iraq. my district is home to little rock air force base where we have 5,500 airmen and over 1000 military family members. think about this, ladies and gentlemen. the men and womefacing our enemies every day don't want -- know whether they'll get paid. as the standard barrier for the free world, it's unacceptable and really embarrassing that america can't pay their troops for their service. this is not the time for service members and families to wor about when the next check will ariff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: i support this bill. thank you, madam chairman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. dicks: do i have any additional time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has one minute. mr. dicks: i'll reserve my

time. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from kentucky prepared to close? mr. rogers: i am prepared to cle. i'm the remaining speaker. mr. dicks: well, let me say again -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield myself the remaining time. i just want to summarize again, i'm urging a no vote on this continuing resolution. we have voted twice. many of us on this side for reasonable continuing resolutions that have gotten us to this point. this one is unreasonable. the presint has made it clear that he will veto this bill. i believe what the gentleman from maryland was attempting to do was the smart and pragmatic thing and that was to go with a clean c.r. that would have kept the government open, that would have protected the troops, made sure that they got paid and would have passed the senate and would have been adopted by the president, signed into law.

but they have chosen to put in a highly controversial writer on abortion in the district of columbia which is ideological. this is not -- this is not something that a serious appropriations committee would do in the middle of a government crisis. and i hope the marn people understand that. and i yield -- and i hope the american people understan that. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. rogers: how much time? the speaker pro tempore: 2 1/4 minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, madam speaker. let's try to summarize here. the democrats left us when we took control of the house in a mess. you hadn't passed a single appropriations bill. you had passed the c.r. until march 4. we prepared and put in play and

passed in the house a continuing resolution that would have funned the government entirely for the balance of the year including the military. sent it to the other body, and th've said nothing and that's been two months ago. when that time ran out in march , this body passed a second c.r. for two weeks. sent that to the senate. we haven't heard from them since. that time ran out. we passed a third c.r.. passed it to the senate. not a peep, nothing. and now a fourth time. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, you well know -- will the gentleman yield? you well know -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky controls the time. mr. rogers: now, our fourth c.r. where we're going to give the senate another chance to come forward with what they propose in a c.r. they've yet to pass anything,

and i have to say this too. the white house has been late in coming to the aid of their party. the white house has been absent from the battle until the last few days. and now you come to us and say, look, here's what we complain about your cleaning up our mess. d i say to you, th . . other side of the world. and the commander in chief of the military is saying, i'm going to veto the bill that pays their salaries and supports their families back home. i find that inexplicable. inexplicable that the commander in chief would put an end to the pay of our soldiers. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. mr. rogers: the failure of the senate to act and the failure of the white house to act when we passed this bill means a agnelli would hear from the group planned parenthood. they toughen laws for federal funding -- they are objecting to toughening laws for federal funding on abortion. [cheers] >> you are a beautiful sight. are you ready to stand up for women's health? you have come from far and wide. we have plenty to stand up for

today. we are standing up for any woman was ever found a fresh lump. we are standing up for any woman who's ever had an abnormal pap smear. r y woman who needed -- getting and , or any woman who needed help. she is here today sees say thank you to planned parenthood for saving her life. we want to thank her for being here on behalf of all cards people. unfortunately we are here today because some politicians on capitol hill are working overtime to take a lifesaving health care away from women. instead of putting people back to wk, they are trying to lock

women out of planned parenthood health centers. that will not help the economy. it will not save the government a single dime. we will not stand for that. we have heard from more than 800,000 peoe around the country who told the congress no to blocking access to doctors and nurses at planned parenthood health centers, no advancing political program at the expense of our health. we are standing tall today. we are united. weome with a single goal to make our voices heard. [applause] as all of these negotiations and discussions are taking place and are coming down to the wire, we are hereo say, "no compromise on family planning. if no compromise on planned parenthood. and noompromise on women's

health." i will leave you with this last thought -- we are joined by ed harris. he starred in "apollo 13." we have awakened a sleeping giant. and hundreds of thousands of people across this country are standing up and saying do not women's itics with health if you remember on apollo 13 when it looked like the astronauts could not be saved, ed harris said, "i believe this will bour finest hour." by god, it is going to be. [applause] now it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you a woman who leads pro-choice america, nancy

keenan. [applause] >> hello, pro-choice americans. [applause] on behalf of pro-choice america, i am proud to join you for calling an end to the war on women in this country. election, thear's politicians promised us eight smaller, less intrusive government that focuses on creating jobs. the truth is, john boehner and his allies lied and our failing to live up to their promise. they are showing the american

public their hypocrisy. let me tell you, these guys what a government that is just small enough to fit into your bedroom and your medicine cabinet. [applause] in addition to the aid and debt pit and private insurance coverage for abortion. their agenda would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care to women who will die with about it. their agenda manipulates the tax code that would do the rape survivors to audit by the internal revenue service.

john boehner does not have a mandate from the women across the country. the war is out of country our count's values. we are here today and every day to make sure that john boehner here is as loud and clear. let's make some allies. -- some noise. if you wrote a book to get here -- rose eight -- run a bus to get here, and make some noise. if you are under 30 years old, and make some always.

-- make some noise. but this is the first day you are mad as hell, make some of noise. if you are part of his pro- choice nation, make some noise. many of them could not be with us today. each of you hold the power to persuade these elected officials to stand with us. and activist from march massachusetts could not be here. she said you have to tell them your story. you represent at least 100

voices that cannot be with us today. i stand on your shoulders. if you are pro-choice america. together we fight, today, tomorrow, every day until we and this war on women. [shares] cheers] >> please welcome chuck schumer. [cheers] >> hello. i am a graduate student at syracuse university and the prident of voices for planned parenthood and on campus

advocacy organization. i am so thrilled to be here today with all levier as eight -- with all of you. thiss a dream come true. thank u very much. i am incredibly honored to be introducing our next speaker who is one of the top leaders in the democratic caucus. senator chopped schumer -- chuck schumer. i am also honored to represent one of the 84,000. i stand with petition signers. i have a list of names over here todayo give to the senator schumer. [cheers] these are just a few of the more than 800,000 signatures we have gotten from supporters of from

every state showing the amazing support for planned parenthood across the country. [shares] without further ado, it is my pleasure to introduce my senator, senator chuck schumer. >> thank you. i stand with my colleagues here from two of the greatest advocates and senators that we have in the u.s. senate. barbara boxer and patty. the dangerous ideological cuts planned parenthood that passed are never going to pass

the senate. [cheers] let me repeat that. all of those who want tstomp on women's health and rights c hear as loud and clear. the danger is ideological cut to planned parenthood that passed the house are never, never, never going to pass the senate'. as you are aware comment there is a movement afoot in this country that want to turn the clock back all away on the environment. they want to go back to the 1890's when polluters were free to contaminate our air and water.

comes to the rights of people to collectively bargain. a right that helped to create the great american middle class. they want to go back to the 1920's when workers were powerless. when it comes to the right of women, if they want to go back to the 1950's when women were denied access to save, affordable, and life saving reproductive services. we will not let them turn the clock back. we are going to move a foreword. you are standing up for hard one of progress. -- hard won progress. we stand withou. [cheers] >> please, give a warm welcome

to planned parenthood advocate and one of our greatest allies barbara boxer. >> thank you for having me today. my name is angelica. i'm a freshman in college. i've been a part of this program for five years. i let them know that we are staying protected. i believe that birth control and education are important for people all over the world in

every community. today i stand as a proud resident of los angeles, california. i'm very proud to have barbara boxer as my senator. she is a tireless champion for women's health and right and opposes efforts to prevent plant parents said from providing health care. >> i am barbara boxer from the great pro-choice state of california. thank you for your words.

we are here today for a very important reason. we are going to send a powerful message that we are not going to stand idly by as women's lives under attack. we are going to fight back. republicans have made their intentions clear. they want to roll back every protection and every llar of federal funding for women's health and family planning that is essential for our women today in america. are we going to let them do that? are we going to let them do that? that is right -- what i thought you would say, thank god. we are not going to just eliminate funding for planned

parenthood. we will not let them elinate funding for title 10, which is the way we reach women who need basic health-care. we will not turn our backs on the women of america whoely on the services. we stand for those women and we stand for them proudly. we tell them "do not give up hope. we are there for you every day." [cheers] i have a constituent -- let's do that. every day. every day. every day. [chanting "everyday."] this is so great. i want to give you the place that we are fighting for it today. like nikole when she was 23

years old and had no insurance. she went to planned parenthood for a pap smear which found cervical cancer. planned parenthood how can get the treatment she needed. she says she would not be alive today without their help. that is why we are here today by team for the nicoles of america. i have great news for you. you know that there are 100 senators. if you want to get something done, you need 60. if you need to stop something, you need 41. 41 senators signed a letter th said we will stand against any budget cut that put the health and lives of women at risk. back [cheers]

we got it in writing. we got it in writing. that is what elections have consequences. to not get me started on that. you know the republicans a stream -- extreme budget introduces extreme bills. you need to hear what they are. we must say no to an extreme agenda that blocks a woman and from using their own money to buy the health insurance that works best for them. we say no to that kind of a bill. we say no to an extreme agenda that punishes businesses and families with a bill that says he will have a tax hike if you tried to buy private insurance that covers a full range of

reproductive health care. we say no to that. this is america. there is free choice and amera. we say no to another extreme bill. listen to this. it would put the irs in the middle of the personal and private decision by requiring millions of women who have had an abortion to disclose it to tax auditors. we say no. we are n turning the irs into a poce van. -- policeman. we cannot allow these bills. we cannot allow cuts that will hurt the women of this nation. i am here to say to you, because i see it iyour eyes right here that the opposition does not know that they just woke up a sleeping giant.

the opposition does not understand that women and people who love them will not sit idly by. i say toy republican friends "get off of these bills that heard women. the whole world will know that this agenda has the thing to do with the choice. it has nothing to do with ts. we already know federal funds cannot be used for abortion." this this is about denying women the basic health care they need. we stand together. we will win. thank you very much. see you later. [cheers] >> washington state's first female senator and the chair of the democratic senatorial campaign committee, patty murray.

>> thank you. it is great to be with you here today. thank you. this is what a real rally looks like. i am here today like everyone of you to speak with one of the place -- one voice to deliver one message. no budget that cut the funding for women's health care will make it out of the building behind me. [cheers] this is too important. there is too much on the line. there are too many of you who will stand up for women all across this country. i have been overwhelmed

by the unified response to this extreme proposal. i know in my home state of washington planned parenthood organizers collected over 45,000 signatures in opposition to this. just the other day, i posted a message on my facebook page saying i would be speaking here athis rally. i asked if anyone had a story about their personal experience with planned parenthood and told them i would try to included. the support end stories -- and stories poured in. one story from a woman named maggie struck me. when she was 18 years old, she because of an abusive situation. she had no money and no access

to health care. she told me because a planned parenthood was there for her with medication and regular checkups, she survived. she needed it because she had cervical cancer that ran in her family. people like that are what and who is at stake here today. you all know that they are out of this budget debate and even there the last election republicans de a big promises about just what they were going to come to washington, d.c. to do. they said they wanted to come here to create jobs and reduce the deficit. it turns out tt it was not really true. it turns out that what they came here to do was more about ideology than our economy.

it turns out that when push came to shove their real target is not unemployment. it is planned parenthood. it turns out that there would rather it jeopardize women's held than jeopardize their standing among the most extreme inheir party. it turns that what they came here to do is to threaten your reproductive right. i will tell you what, i am n one to stand by and watch it happen. -- i am not going to stand by and watch it happen. i will not stand by as republicans try to make right to cancer screenings a thing of the past and they turn their backs on low income women with no where to go for a family planning services. i'm not going to stand by and watch as they take away resources for prenatal care.

i will not stand by as republicans try to block patients' access to planned parent access centers that they can go to every year. its pretty clear that you will stand by either. today there -- to get there, today, it is important that tell them that we are not going to budge. [cheers] we will not allow ideology to come before women's health care. we will not allow them to defund planned parenthood and dismantle progress. walking the halls of congress with your help held high and

proudly. raise your voices. raise areness. at the end of the day, you will make the difference for millions of women in this country. the stand and be proud. thank you very much. -- stand by and be proud. thank you very much. >> please join me in welcoming senator frank boston bird -- lautenburg. like you have heard this before. we are on fire and ready to go. no matter what disguise the one to use, we will not let them fall us, right? they cannot have a mission that says that women who cannot afford their own health care program should be deprived of having breast cancer

examinations that will save their lives. we are saying you cannot do that to us. if you cannot do that. i wonder if they know that taxpayers -- pap smears and exams have reduced mortality by 74%. they want to take it away. we will not let them do it, a friend. i enlisted in world war ii to make sure that americans stay free. we will continue that battle matter what happens. they cannot pl that kind of stuff on us. this is not a financial matter. it is taking away choice, confirmed by the 1973 bill that says women have the right to have an abortion if that is what

she chooses to do. it did -- if not for them, -- it is not for them to override family decisions about how and when a pregnancy happens. they are not going to sit in our houses. it they will not sit at our table and tell us what to do. they will not do it here either. i promise you that. how many people here are from new jersey? how many people are not here butter on the same -- are not from neat -- anyway, we are ready to fight. we will continue.

i feel verencouraged. harry reid ss the woman's right to choose is her choice not been their choice. -- kirk choice, not of their choice. stay strong. we will win this battle easily. thank you very much. >> please welcome ed harris and amy madigan. >> yeah. [cheers] it is so fantastic to be here today. i am a national board member of

naral pro-choice america. we are the legislative arm of the pro-choice movement. we work state-by-state commodore by door, twitter, e-mail, anything the impossibly imagine to get our coalitions together and say we have the right over our ownealth care and their own bodies. i get asked many times why i do this. it is very easy for me to answer. i am all did not a i can admit it. al is a round of pre-roe v wade. there was a time when young women did not go to their parents or their friends or their doctors. they did not know what to do.

people went underground and had to get money from their friends and get in a car and be shamed and victimized. we will never go back to that situation again. [cheers] today is an incredibly important and special day for me. i have my family with me. my husband and my daughter. shot that to all the people who have their families here. s -- shout outs to all the people who have their families here. without them i would not be able to do this work. they will carry on this a work.

i would like to thank you all for owing up. this is just the beginning. you have to go to five people and have them go to another five people. this is just the beginning and it will not end peacefully. i am very fortunate to live with it really hot guy. he happens to be my husband. he is also my best friend, the most incredible father and an advocate for weapons rights -- for women's rights, that mr. ed harris. >> thank you. i cannot tell you how proud i am of my wife. she has been fighting this fight for as long as i have known her.

i know she will fight it out until she can no long breathe. thanks for everyone who boarded buses to be here today. be are honored to be a part of the pro-choice community. amy mentioned our daughter. not only will she graduated fro high schools in, but she will also be turning 18 and registered to vote. i have a message for the politicians who are waging this war on women, denying my daughter's generation access to contraception, cantor screens, and reproductive choice is not a smart move.

i know that some people have said that today's teenagers have a short attention span. i strongly disagree. v remembersotes what -- will remember what vote you cast and the affect. they will remember who stood up for women and who did not win the time comes to evaluate our lawmakers. the attacks on women's freedom and privacy will end up making generation ther's

most pro-choice generation they have seen. [ches] thank you at each and everyone of you. ank youor all you do to protect the choice. thank you very much. >> please welcome the advocate for women help. -- health.

>> hi, everybody. are you fired up? we are in a fighting mood. i hope you are in a fighting mood, because we have a fight on our hands. the fight we have is the perennial fight for women's health. we cannot let the 112th congress take away our rigs to health care. the you agree? ok. you might have heard that we have 9% unemployment. apparently this is nothe

agenda of the new leadership in congress. apparently, the agenda of the new leadership in congress is to systematically take away with an's health, and you know this, and we are not going to let it happen. the very first bill they passed was a bill to defund the health care bill, which gave so many services to women and eliminated scrimination on theasis of gender. we think that is wrong, and we will fight to make sure that that does not happen. the second thing they did, they passed a bill that said you cannot buy an insurance policy and get a tax credit as if you offer for reproductive services. we are not going to let that happen, either. you might have heard as well as

a few other far-right social issues that the thing that is holding up the budget negotiations right now is their desire to deny women in the district of columbia the right to full reproductive services. e are not gone to let that happen, either. make no mistake about it. there is a systematic assault on women's health care. health care. prevention, birth control, full reproductiveights, and it is happening right now, right down the hill, and there's only one way to sto it, because we do not have a pro-troops majority in the u.s. house of reprentatives. in thet-troy's majority house of representatives. -- pro-choice majority in the

house of representatives. we need to call them out on this. we need to say to them, it is not just about abortion, although abortion rights are important. it is about birth control. it is about preventing unwanted pregnancies. is it -- is about cancer screenings. it is about women's health care, and you cannot take your right- wing assault on women, and we are not going to allow it to happen. i am so glad you are here supporting me and the caucus, which is 170 strong in the house. i am glad you are here supporting each other, but what i really need you to do is march down the street right here and tell every member of congress, house and senate, democrat and

republican, man and woman, we are not like to stand for it. we are going tfight for women's health, and we are going to fight until we win. thank you very much. >>, and now, one of the strongest advocates for women's health, rosa dilauro. >> thank you, thank you so much. yes, stop the war on women and women's health, stand up for women's health. that is why we're here today. thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for your energy. we need your help. , and this ison hav a fight about choice, it is a

bad choice about republicans that threaten woman tossed out, basic rights, and economic well- being. everyone agrees that we need t get our fiscal house in order, reduce the deficit, cut programs backed that did not work, but why don't we start by getting rid of the $40 billion and oil company subsidies that we get out every year? it is time to stop billions in tax breaks for the wealthy, billions in the loopholes that are for corporations who should our jobs overseas. but the majority instead of trying to cut the deficit to create jobs, they are spending all of their time on an extreme and the prices social agenda. -- divisive at a socl agenda.

make no mistake, this congress wants to turn back the clock on women's help and basic rights. they want to take us back to a day when family planning was not an opptunity for women. and today, the rules committee meets on a bill, and a congresswoman will talk about it, which raises taxes and restrict our access to basic reproductive rights. that is not all. it is seeking a radical step that this majority budget eliminates title x, which has connected millions of women to health care since 1970. in 2009, listen to thi because it is important, i am a goo survivor of ovarian cancer. i know what screening means. i know what health services are. title x perform 2.3 million breast exams, and nearly a

million hiv tests . but republicans want to zero all of this out. for every dollar invested in title x, under the guise of budget cutting, the majority's trunk and this cost-cutting lifesaving program. understand their real purpose, to of this -- to impose their view of a woman possible. that is it, and the story. there reckless budget excludes planned tariff could from all resources. planned parenthood, which brings characters over 5 million americans, immunizations, gynecological exams, nearly 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, nearly 4 million treatments for sexually transmitted infection every

single year. this would all be lost. let's get real. let's get real. none of this is about federal funding of abortion. funds are already banned from going toward services. ther, much like they're a tends to repeal health care reform, this is part of a republican agenda to force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunity. we're not goi tlet them do it. my colleagues and i felt out against these unhealthy cuts. we did it for hours, well into the night and in the early morning, and 41 democratic senators have said no way, not on our watch. it is time to stand up for women's health, the snd against the republicans'

reckless assault on our health and our basic rights. these republican proposals are bad policy. they heard women, and they do nothing for our economy. they will cost american dollars and will cost american lives. we need to make it clear, as you are standing here, from this day forward, we will not stand for it. thank you for being here. let's get to work. thank you. god bless you. thank you. >> please welcome louise slaughter. >> you sure are a good sight to see. all right, who is here from new york? way to go, all right. i am honored to be heaoday,

but i am sad about that because i have spent 40 years of my life working on this issue. first, i am tired. said as a member of the league of voters and planned parenthood, thens a member of the state legislature, and ever since i got the town here. this i probably one of the worst times we have seen because of the numbers of people who were elected to congress. i went to this as the co-chair of a caucus. they are now here to kill women. it is a very difficult time for us in washington. there is nothing -- it is their bills that have nothing to do about the health of the woman. you are allowed to have an abortion if you have been raped or it is a matter of incest. however, you have to keep a receipt. did you know that?

it is like an old german nazi movement, show me your papers. it happens as you have to prove that you have been raped with police documents, proved to the irs that it was all right to have your abortion coverage, and in many cases you need to be able to prove that you paid for it yourself. this is one of the biggest setbacks i have ever seen. do they do that for vasectomies? no. if they were serious they would stop -- voting against medical procedures. it has gone to the point where it is absurd. this afternoon we are brought to the bill, i will be in the rules committee, fighting it yet again. we hope we can -- what they

did against planned parenthood and npr, it is ideology. it makes no sense at all, and i am sad watching civilization been peeled off my country here, a layer at a time. what we have to make certain up his the burdens placed on women will not stand. they have been designed tohip away at insurance. we understand it. it will make it so difficult to get insurance that companies will drop the abortion rider and companies may recover it if it keeps up. that is where our fight is. we got a message from the white house while i was on the floor, the president will veto this bill. yes. great.

i hope he can hear you from here. way to go, way to got! all right. good. i think this legislation attacks the bedrock of our country. we have fought as women and a lot of good men to have our rights to vote. now they are chipping away at that, a piece of the time, reproductive freedom. i promise you that i will stand with you and for you in your place, whatever we need to do, until we see this through, and once again we have thebility, not have to go through what i had gone through back in the day, when women were simply sent to the back alleys and put their lives in danger. thank you so much for being here. thank you. >> please recognize the great

champion for women's health, a representative. please welcome connie britton and david eichenberg from "sex and the city." >> ok. today is the day. this is real here today, as real as it ever gets. politicians have been elected to the hill in d.c. to do something. i do not know exactly what, but they were not elected here to take away with an's health rights. i am honored and humbled, and it

is a privilege for me to be here today and said with a courageous pro-choice america, and planned parenthood, the heart and soul -- they took care of my wife thought reproductive health when she was a young woman. many of you know me from "and the city." i work with a couple girls. i love them. she went the other way in her own life. god bless her. i love cynthia. men are 49% of this nation. hope that soon there will be 49% of the men of this nation will be here supporting women's health and reproductive rights.

we have a lot of men here, and is a good thing to see, and the man up here, also. i am a silly actor by trade, and i love what i do. but today i am here to speak to you all as a husband, father, and a brother. as someone who wants nothing but the best for all the women in my life. the way we tre our sisters and our daughters reflects entellus so much about our country. and i believe today with every fiber of my being that what we -- what we are fighting for today is not controversial. it is about common sense.

and common decency. do not take away a woman's right to choose. we know men and women that have relied on planned parenthood for health services. we know people in all our lives to have fed a difficult personal decisions. we are here today to honor those people. with every part of myoul, i believe we live in a country that agrees with our values, and i will continue day after day, night after night, to speak out until we have a congress that thinks the same way. i think you all. i want to thank the people from

the coalition who have at our back, at my back today. planned parenthood, naral, has her back. >> is nice to see a dude up here, huh? thank you, david, for being here. we're not here for anything controversial today, are we? heah women's controversial? are women's wright's controversial? is a basic human dignity controversial? i am shocked that we are here today at all. i was talking to charlie back here, and he the same -- noted charlie? he said we have people here today in high school and in college.

i will age myself now because in 1989 i was in college and there was a big, gigantic rally right here on this lawn to protect roe vs. wade, and i came down from hanover, new hampshire, to be a part of that. i can tell you right now i never, ever thought in my life that i would have to be standing here again. it is breaking my heart, i have to say. i could just break out crying rightow, but it is thrilling to see you all here, and i am so grateful all the volunteers, to all themazing men and women who are fighting this fight, which should not be a fight for us. this is a fight for our

fundamental rights. as women and as human beings. i am so honored to be here to stand with all of you today, and i know you are all going to go out and we are not want to make this a fight anymore. after tomorrow, we will be victors. thank you, all. god bless. keep up the good fight. >> please give a warm welcome to a planned parenthood patient and her daughter. >> thank you for inviting me to speak here today. i live in sarasota, florida. i am a single mom, raising two

taylor,daughters, ann taylorand 18, is here today. i w diagnosed with cervical cancer when i was 19 years old. i was a youngninsured college student. i was a regular patient planned parenthood because they were the only place i could go for preventive care and checkups. it was a basic pat smear that found my first cancer, which enough thatearly it was treated successfully. in addition to keeping myself hopping, i have to make sure my two daughters get their regular checkups they need. my mother died of breast cance

when she was 57. i have had staged three breast ncer and have been tested for the cancer gene, and unfortunately, i have it. that means mdaughters have a 50% chance of getting breast cancer. a 35% chance of developing urine and cervical cancer. it is critical my girlset regular checkups. the only place i can take them for these is planned parenthood health center. they get that prevented the tests they need to make sure we can catch any abnormalities as soon athey caught mine. people talk about the importance of frequent checkups and early detection. i know for a fact that the checkups that i received at planned parenthood when i was 1

saved my life. i realize now how planned parenthood in sarasota to make sure my daughter stay healthy. when i hear politicians talk about cutting funding for planned parenthood, when i hear them saying is they did not care about my family. they do not care about women like me who are trying to be responsible and stay healthy, so we need a little help. planned parenthood has been there for me since i was a teenager. without them i might not have survived cancer. i know i would not be able to keep my daughters safe and healthy now. we need anned parenthood.

i am so proud to be here with my daughter taylor today and standing here with all of you. thank you. >> join them as they introduce the leaders from two allied groups. [applause] >> ok, so you have done this, but join me in welming a champion for the rights of all people, dignity, and quality -- and the quality, get a huge welcome to my friend and our allies, wade henderson. >> thank you. thank you. good morning.

you are america the beautiful, and it is an honor to be with you today. i am wade henderson. i am president of the leadership council -- conference on -- can to build an america that is as good as its ideals. one of the reasons that our coalition is so strong is we have strong, dedicated organizations like the planned parenthood federation of america. working every day to protect and advance the rights of women and families. we are proud of planned parenthood, and we are proud to stand with all of you today to fight for women's rights and to make sure that women have access to the health care they need and deserv

all right? look, i think all of us realize the nine -- the nine women pakistan -- denying women access to health care is a -- truth is that politicians who are threatening your health care, in seeking to defund is asians, are doing so for one simple reason -- they are afraid oyou. they are afraid of you. that is right. the people here on capitol hill, right up there, are afraid of you. and why? they should be. they should be. because you are one of the biggest and most powerful obstacles standing in the way of

their plans to take america ck to the 1h century. they want to dismantle medicaid and medicare and social security, but you are standing in the way. they want to destroy it public and private-sector unions that fight for equal pay, family leave, and people worki the dish, but you are standing in the way. they want to keep your children out of head start and make it harder for them to go to college by cutting pell grants, but you are standing in the late. of all, they want to transfer more power to millionaires and make it harder for you to achieve the american dream. but you are standing in the way. that is why we have to stand

together today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes. to make our voices heard, and to send a messa that we're not going back in time and we are not gone away. this is our time. we are one. together, now, and forever. thank you. alright. >> we have been here before. we have been on this mall in the 1980's. we came back in the 1990's, filled this place to the

rafters. planned parenthood organize the march for women's lives. wi over 1 million women and wham who stood up for reproductive rights, and guess what -- we're not away. -- we're not going away. they pulled these shenanigans year after year, a battle after day, per day after forget of young people who will stand up for a woman's right to choose. why does a gay guy like me care about choice? i care about contraception because it keeps us healthy. i care about the fact that my

niece's should be able to choose when and if they have a child. that no politician should stand in the way of my sisters being able to decide what they want to do with their personal life. at the base of it, we control our bodies. we decide who we love and marry. halwe decide whether or not we l have a family. those folks have to hear it from us that we decide. our voices are not his to be heard across the street but in places like south dakota and north dakota, florida, wre

they are here. go home and tell your folks and family that you decide d live your life with dignity the way you want. that is your god-given right in america. [applause] [applause] >> we decide, we decide, we decide. >> bravo. bravo. you have been amazing. are these guys amazing? [applause] it is my distinct pleasure to

introduce one of the nation's foremost religious fures, spiritual writers, and activists who will close our rally. please welcome her. >> we have this thing called testimony. we tell someone a story which we overcame or something that we want to rebuild to god. in 1969, i had a hard choice of ving an abortion in a dark alley and i almost died from it. i had plaed parenthood so i could have at least a healthy choice for my life and have healthy information. i brought my daughter and my granddaughter with may because i

want her to be an activist. women today, you have given your voice and vote. we need to have our choice. we need productive rights. we want to stop the war on women. i want to lay led to have the same things that the women are given today, equal health care, equal understanding of what their life choices are. not to be terrified by any man keeping us in darkness.

show up, show out, stop the war on women. to that, i say that is a woman not a man's decision. >> thank you. >> i will see you on this hill. good night.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the destruction of that tiny infant baby girl, simply because she is female. i see some people on your staff laughing and smiling. it galls me to no end have we

have no look at this gendercide issue. it is unconscionable that girls are being targeted because they are girls. by 2020, 40 million men will not be able to find wives because they have been eliminated systematically as a direct result of the one child per couple strategy. these are crimes against gender. crimes against humanity and where is the genocide convention panel of experts? where is the council? the periodic review punts on this with regards to china. so i would ask you please to raise this issue aggressively and take back, if you would, the request and have real transparency with regards to it. it does not exist currently. >> i'm not sure i'm going to be able to address all of those in

the 30 seconds remaining. i'm going to talk as fast as i know how. in referendum u.n., they are if the process of talking to southern authorities about what would be the optimal configuration for a u.n. mission. we expect there to be one but its conference decision will depend on how far the two parties get in negotiating some of the remaining issues and what the government itself chooses to ask for. sexual exploitation is to have gravest dorn the united states. >> thank you, ambassador. i know this is a serious issue that merits further inquiry. we'll look forward to getting your response after the hearing or if not, in written form. mr. payne, the ranking member on the same committee. >> thank you very much. i agree with my colleague from

new jersey about policies in china. however, i think that probably one of the things that have made china as strong as it is is because of the race that u.s. businessmen have made to china and we have a policy where china has been able to make itself very strong and china is stronger by virtue of the large es of what they are able to get out of our business community. i think maybe the burden is not necessarily the united nations but the behavior of our u.s. business people where this doesn't become an issue. let me just say that i think that i believe participating in issues like human rights council and also think that we could actually argue our point into the i.p.u. which is international parliamentary union which s a group that the united states removed itself from maybe 10-15 years ago.

israel is still a member. they say why don't we come back to a system but we don't come back because of the issues, which to me, there is no voice within the i.p.u. to assist israel and they stay there by themselves without the support of the u.s. let me commend the assistance that you have known sudan with the 90% turnout of the election. the 96% or 97% of people they should remove. i would like to know what we can do to pressure the results for a.b.a. if it remains unresolved, i believe war will happen in sudan between the north and the south in the future. it will be similar to the issue in pakistan and india that will not be resolved and still continues on. i wonder if you could comment on

the somalia and the u.n.'s -- with their peace keeping, also where the u.n. and i commend them for their resolutions and is there any more action that the u.n. will take for him to step down in the -- gbagbo to step down this that area. morocco continues to illegally occupy western sahara. is the u.n. doing anything to deal with that situation? >> thank you, mr. payne. let me begin with sudan and the question of i.b.a. as you know, the united states has been very active in trying to, not only originally to broker the c.p.a. but to ensure its full implement akseation but

trying resolve all of the outstanding post referendum issues. it should have been, as you know, dealt with in its own referendum simultaneous to the referendum. the ambassador who was recently named by proub as his new special envoy is out in the region as we speak. he is out working actively with both parties as well as with the a.u. high-level panels, former south african president and others trying to push for resolution of i.b.a.. we fully understand its significance as a critical issue that needs to be resolved. as you also know, it is one of the most difficult ones and thus far, we have not seen the parties exhibit sufficient flexibility to resolve it swiftly. there are a number of other post referendum issues that also are still to be negotiated.

all of which are high on our agenda. if i might for a second, it has been raises by the others as well. the u.n. is playing a very active role making clear who won the election. the president was legitimately elected and that bag bow must step down and should have done so quite sometime ago. we induced some sanctions on gbagbo and his cronies and beefed up the u.n. peacekeeping mission which is actively taking on its peace enforcement mission to protect civilians and to take out heavy weapons and to facilitate the emergence of a representative government there. the u.n. is taking a lot of casualties. it is under attack, but it is doing with the support of the french very important work to try to protect civilians and

take out the heavy weapons and we hope that the bloody standoff which is persisting, would end. madame chairwoman, i don't know if my -- >> these are all serious topics and sincerely apologize to the members for the time limitation but we have so many folks who want to ask questions. i know that each one merits a fuller discussion. mr. rohrabacher, subcommittee and oversight investigation. >> thank you, ambassador rice. madam chair chairman. when we are spending 1.2 trillion dollars more than we are taking in and we realize this is heading us toward a financial catastrophe of historic proportions as the interest that we have to pay on that goes up and it is a interest rates go up as inflation cuts into our people's economic reality, as of right

now, the amount of money we are being asked to spend for the united nation's is $6.3 billion. is that correct? is that a correct figure of what we're being asked? >> no. >> thank you for your important question. if we need to have clarity on it, what is the budget request? >> what are we actually asking to give to the united nations from the united states? >> we're asking for $1.619 billion. as well as other international organizations. not all united nations. the regular budget request as a subset of that is $568 million. for peacekeeping, for fiscal

2012, we are suggesting $1.9 to meet our contributions which we estimate will be 2.145. >> what does that all add up to? >> i can get you that in a second. but it is $1.619 plus 2.145. >> we're talking about real money here. let me just say to provide that type of money to something that uses israel as a punching bag is not acceptable. they are people who they themselveses are guilty of major crimes against humanity, whether it is china and the genderside that we heard about or other countries that murder their own people or repress their own people. let me ask you this, going into

the question on my position -- do you believe that the u.n. resolutions limit us to what we can do in our own interest, what our government can do in our own interest? >> no. absolutely not. >> so u.n. resolutions do not limit the united states as to what we can do in our own interests? >> no. first of all, there is no such thing as a u.n. resolution that the united states hasn't voted for. first point. second point. >> does not china have a veto power? >> there is no resolution that can pass the security council without u.s. support. >> is a veto and the position of not voting, is that the same? >> no. >> so our resolution can

actually go forward unless we veto it. unless we are -- if we're refraining, a resolution can still go through. >> we have three choices, sir, when we vote. we can vote yes. we can abstain, which we almost never do, and we can vote no. when we vote no, that is the equivalent of a veto but nothing can be adopted by the security council without the u.s.'s consent. >> without the u.s. not abstaining. >> that is a form of assent ultimately because we have allowed it to go through. >> we can talk about that in greater depth but let me just ask about the money. how much has the budget of the united nations grown over the last 10 years? >> let me answer your prior question. you asked -- the sum of our request for the contributions to

international organizations which includes the regular budget of the united nations which we take 22% and 1.920 for peacekeeping. i want to underscore that the account includes a number of international organizations like the o.a.s. >> so what is the bottom line on it? >> i'm giving you a number. 3.539 is the subtotal. for c.i.o. and peacekeeping accounts. >> for all u.n. activities? we're talking about 3.5? >> that's what i just said. it includes some other organizational activities. thank you. >> sorry, you're over five. thank you. i apologize. >> fraud is something you need to tell your boss that we're very concerned about.

>> thank you. respond for the record to the accounting issue i brought up in my opening statement. i hope that the administration will use full cost accounting, which is the legitimate system of accounting with the political disadvantage of truthfully telling the american people how expensive it is for us to provide military assets to these u.n. authorized activities because then you'll gain for our country the diplomatic advantage of telling the world the enormous burden that the american taxpayer absorbs in order to make available to such actions as libya, our unique military capacity. as to libya, the issue has arisen as to what does the president have the power to do in the absence of a statutory

authorization passed by both houses of congress? and my question for you is is the president's legal power expanded? does he have more permissible options because our actions in libya are pursuant to a united nation's resolution? does the u.n. resolution have any effect on presidential power? >> let me begin with your first question, if i might. i think there is some important clarifications that need to be made. there are u.n. operations, which are u.n. blue helmeted or field missions for which we are requesting funding in the sipa account. these are the 14 missions that i described in places like haiti. >> i have so many questions.

i hope you'll respond to the accounting question. >> i'm trying my best. i have to do it with clarity. >> i fully understand they are the blue helmeted operations. >> that's what we talk about. >> the security council might bless or authorize then we do in our own national interests. those would include afghanistan. >> i regard those as cost consistent with the u.n.. >> those are things that -- >> will you please respond to my libya question? >> i'm trying to. now the libya mission is not one that falls under u.n. accounting or u.n. budgets. it is something that we are undertaking at a national -- >> can you address my libya question as to the powers of the president? >> as to the powers of the president, mr. sherman, of course the powers of the president are what they are is

spelled out in the constitution and they are neither enhanced or diminished by the resolution. >> what is the administration's position on palestinian attempts or discussion on a unilateral declaration of statehood, will the united states work actively to defeat this attempt to the general assembly, should it arise? what has the administration done so far? >> thank you. i appreciate that. let me explain again, if i can process. for a new state to gain membership of the united nations, two things have to happen. it has to be recommended by the security council where we have a veto and then it must be agreed by 2/3 of the general assembly. if that issue were to arise, while i obviously would not want

to address definitively a hypothetical, i think i can say with a high degree of confidence that the establishment that way of a state prior to the final status issues being resolved and direct negotiations would run counter to long standing u.s. policy. now there is not a risk o palestinian state being included in the united nationsst as a member state without the u.s. agreeing to that. ok? now what we could face separately is the general assembly adopting a political declaration that doesn't have the -- international law but would have perhaps some other form of waste, political or symbolic. that they could do without creating a state formaly,

without creating a member state and that would be a political declaration of sort that could come before the general assembly. we may not be in the minority. >> i'm going to recognize mr. tchabo for his five minutes and then we have -- chabot for his five minutes and then -- >> thank you. i would like to return to the topic of the proposed statement condemning israel that i mentioned before. as i previously stated before, many of us in congress were disappointed by the administration's handling of the recent draft resolution of the u.n. security council that criticized condemned israel. the administration cede over and over again, including to this committee, that the security council was wrong.

that it was the wrong place to address final status issues but you repeatedly refused to publicly commit in advance to veto that resolution leaving israel essentially twisting in the wind. then we found out, not directly from the administration, but from the press, that you had reversed your position and were trying to get a security council statement criticizing israel instead of a resolution, and then when the statement was rejected and it came up for a vote, you issued a really astonishing explanation of votes and not only did not support israel but actually joined in the criticism. many of us were extremely disappointed that the administration thought this appropriate let alone acceptable. as i previously stated in 529 short words, the administration undid all the good that had been done by its veto. in criticizing israel, you used such language as reject in the

strongest terms, corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region, devastates trustings folly and ill he jet massy. -- ill legitimacy. many of us read this as we agree with the demonizing condemnation and vilifying but we regretbly have to vote against it. we wanted to support the resolution, and we agree with the substance but we were regretbly, we have to vote against it. with those worts, ambassador rice, we essentially, threw our friend and ally israel to the wolves. the united states, i think has to look at this very closely. the united nation's se a deeply flawed body. i'm disappointed to say on february 18, we added to those

flaws instead of being a force for good, as a strong defender, i want to make clear that i reject in the strongest terms this administration's criticism of israel. it corrodes hopes for peace and trust. perhaps you can clarify for me what was the administration hoping to accomplish with your anti-israel statement? would you want the u.s. to be treated this way by our allies? how can our calls to end the demonizing of israel be taken seriously when this administration refusedst to speak out at a critical period of time when it really matters? >> this is such an important issue that i would like to have the opportunity to respond full and if you would be a little generous with the time constraints i would appreciate it. i have to say, sir, with all due respect i reject the

characterization of that statement. first of all, the veto itself, the first of this administration, sent a very clear message and our statement was clear about our view of the decision to bring the resolution forward, which we opposed. the statement laid out long-standing u.s. policy saying we are committing to a lasting arab/israeli peace and the only way to achieve peace and security is through direct negotiations between the parties and the draft resolution risked hard tng positions of both sides, encouraging the parties to stay out and come back to the party as they hit impasses in the future. long standing u.s. policy that have opposed steps by either party that could undermine the trust. the explanation restated long standing u.s. policy of six

prior consecutive administrations which has been consistent. it was president bush in april 2002 who said israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop. in 2005, secretary rice said u.s. policy is clear. the expansion of settlements ought to stop. settlement activity ought to stop. we're concerned about any kind of activity that would prejudge the outcome of a final status agreement. the only way to reach a two-state solution is through direct negotiations and said it was unwise to the council to ai tempt to resolve core issues and that every potential action must be over one overriding standard. would it move the parties closer to the agreement? that was what my statement said in some. i think you need to read it in its entirety. it reflects long standing american policy in successive administrations.

we stood strongly against the resolution. we vetoed it. if there is any ambiguity, i don't know what it is. >> i stand by my statement. >> i regretbly have to say i reject this but it has to come to an end. we will come right back. we have eight minutes to vote. we will come back so the committee is temporarily in recess. >> thank you, mad am chairman.

>> the committee is back in session. [inaudible] >> thank you, madam speaker. i heard what you

said. [inaudible] i would like to say as to the budget. i heard the member of the subcommittee read your statement regarding the veto. i have heard about [inaudible]

[inaudible] and i just cannot understand it. you do not say anything about the rocket fire into israel. you cannot talk about 10 months that benjamin netanyahu did not move on settlements because he was [inaudible] i got it right here. >> please read it. >> you can say anything they want -- that you want but facts are facts and this is right here. we would like to put it to israel.

we do not think [inaudible] in your -- your statement is unacceptable. there was criticism across the spectrum on things that were said. there is no question that -- the israeli government has taken steps to do with the problem. you did not mention that. [inaudible] that -- no mention of that or the rocket fire for the civilians that are put in danger. i do not understand that.

when the administration says they are supporting israel and the wait till the last minute -- they would until the last minute -- the administration should have said we support israel. we want there to be a solution. there should be a reasonable expectation [inaudible] that should be the criteria. not blaming israel. beating them over the head and not talking about the rocket fire or danger to civilians. i just do not get it. maybe you can explain. [inaudible] are you with us as far as

congress is concerned? your statements do not indicate that at all. >> i object strenuously to your mischaracterization. >> i object to your statement. >> [inaudible] push the button on your microphone. thank you. >> i object to your suggestions this administration and government is in any way not in support of israel. [inaudible] every day, i and my colleagues stand up in support. this is an important topic.

we have made a top priority of trying to broker a lasting peace between israel and the palestinians at the two state solution. the issue on the table was of resolution on settlements. president obama instructed me to veto the resolution and i did so. my explanation of both explains why we vetoed it. you're welcome to insert it into the record. it operated the longstanding u.s. policy of six consecutive administration's which is that settlement activity is illegitimate. it would set more than that. it spoke about our commitment to a two-stage solution and our opposition to resolving or attempting to address and resolve issues that can be resolved through a -- through negotiation in the context of the resolution.

for this or any subsequent efforts to bring any kind of final status issue before the security council, that is something we have and we will consistently opposed. >> i would like to yield. >> without objection. >> the entire statement. >> that might be limited but we will look into that. it will be made part of the record. i apologize for the technical difficulties. they're trying to work this out. [no audio] i'm sorry about the microphones not working. >> madame ambassador. i will try to bailout. i want to personally thank you for the tough job your doing.

it is not easy to defend some of the practices of the united nations. you can understand why so many people on both sides of the aisle are frustrated and why thwe think the u.s. needs to be seriously revamped. 42 of 65 countries specific are anti-israel. as ben hat -- as has been set, some of the worst human rights abusers in the world sit on that human rights council. i am wondering if you could tell us two things. number one, the goldstone report was rejected on the house floor by this body right after it was passed in the un, and we

rejected it because we said israel -- it is almost a blood libel. as siobhan press said -- shimon peres said. the rocket from gaza hit a school bus, injuring children. we know that hamas deliberately target civilians. therefore, israel has undergone an investigation and has come up with the fact that israel did not target civilians and that is why judge goldstone has repudiated reports. what can we do to make sure that the un repudiates the report, because there was some in the un who want to go forward with the original report as if it were truth and we know it is not.

secondly, unilateral declaration of a palestinian state which i know [inaudible] i know that we will. if the un general assembly passes it, it may be a political statement but it has no effect. i think the recognition impedes a peace agreement because it tells the palestinians they need not sit down and negotiate but somehow they will get their state by refusing to negotiate. israel or any country cannot be put in a position of preconditions to sitting down and talking. these are serious issues that will be resolved in status talks but not as a precondition. i wonder if you can tell us how we can try to ensure goldstone

is repealed and as the resolution was repealed several years ago and what is the administration doing to combat this terrible bias? what you hear in the frustration here is people say, why should we continue to fund the united nations when time and time again, it comes out against what we think is in the best interest of the united states and our ally, israel? your argument that has credence that we have to stay and fight -- i am sure you understand how frustrating it gets printed when we pay the lion's share and we get spit in the face and our ally gets it in the face. i would appreciate your comment. >> thank you. i appreciate the spirit of your questions. we absolutely have been

unequivocal in our condemnation of the substance and conclusions of the goldstone report in which we have been clear on from the outset. we are as i mentioned earlier, are in the process of talking to partners on this about how best in light of both the subsequent actions we are [inaudible] as a result of goldstone and the "the washington post" that we might accelerate our efforts to put this entire sad episode to bed. our goal is twofold. one is to prevent follow-up actions in the security council and other bodies from materializing and secondly, we share your interest in trying to

clear the record. whether that can be done through repudiation, that would require a new resolution of both the human rights council and the general assembly or whether there are procedural mechanisms we can employ. a mess to accomplish that and we're trying to consult with partners -- and our aim is to accomplish that and we're trying to consult with partners to accomplish these goals. >> we hope we can get israel removed from the permanent agenda. >> we welcome the congresswoman from alabama. always welcome to our panel. >> i have three questions for you. two concerning the secretary- general and a third recount -- regarding funding. ban ki-moon appointed experts to advise him and make recommendations on the issues of

accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and the humanitarian law joins this bandage -- joins the stages [inaudible] will the u.s. pushed the united nations to publish this report? the secretary-general has violated the rules and regulations of the un by appointing as his special envoy for libya out an official from the government of jordan. [inaudible]who b this is in violation from rules that no official may receive in come from no outside source. does it agree that the secretary general should not be violating the rules of the organization? can you explain to me why the united states is paying one had a% of the security upgrade cost at the united nations headquarters in new york?

>> thank you. let me begin with your last question. about security upgrades. with regard to the un building and its renovation, we paid 22%. that is our regular budget share of the cost of the overall renovation. it is important to note that american contractors have received the lion's share of the contracts that have been over the renovation. for every dollar we spent, there is $4 coming back into the united states into our economy. the second point, security upgrades. the city of new york at the newark police department -- and the new york police department recommended the renovation given the terrorist threats that face the building and given its geographic location over the fdr freeway and on first avenue.

that there be additional security upgrades above and beyond what was envisioned when the original master plan was implemented. the estimated cost was hundred " -- $100 million. the state department and administration in conjunction with new york authorities and the city as well as the police department made the judgment it was in our interest to get the security upgrades done and done in a timely fashion so the cost overruns were not accepted down the road. american citizens are most affected by the security of the u.n. building in terms of 40% of those in and out of the building are americans but it is americans driving under the it.lding, walking by a that was the decision to invest

in our security and make those upgrades. with respect to the panel of experts, the report is coming forth. we look forward to it and we think it would be beneficial if it were available publicly. with respect to the secretary- general pose a special envoy -- secretary general's envoy. he took on an important role. he briefed the security council and he is an excellent selection of special representative and he is in the process of working out with the secretary-general and his employment and remuneration. he has been out in the field

twice to libya in the short time and we look forward to his employment circumstances being implemented in a fashion consistent with rules and regulations. >> my personal view, israel was the best neighbor and friend we have in the world and we have to continue to make sure the u.n. does not use israel as a bully pulpit for their own agenda. >> i could not agree more. >> we have to make sure that their interests are protected. >> it is an important decision here that rarely gets made. [inaudible] an innocuous -- and inoculates children. there are member states to speak and vote in their interest but it is often not our interest.

>> the ranking member on the subcommittee is recognized. >> thank you. again, i want to thank you for the great work that you have been doing in representing our country. i want to continue to make the case in a ever shrinking world, it is important that we sit and engage with the rest of the world and that is for our security. if we acted unilaterally and would not have the allies we have and many of the nations that are in the un and other places -- >> the mic again. >> it is important that we do not have the go-alone talk of gunslinging attitude that we're working closely.

when we ask individuals to come with us to iraq and afghanistan and to fight with us against terrorism where we need to work with one another to combat terrorism, we need the same allies of whom some would say that we just ignore. i do not know how we ignore them when we will need them to help us and when they need help, we do not help them. that being said, i think you touched on this earlier. there is no secret the previous administration had at times rocky relationships with the un, but they never proposed withholding a significant amount of dos. i know you what -- were not in that position. could you tell us why even the bush administration did not withhold money? what is the significance? >> thank you.

it was interesting that you had former ambassador mark wallace testified before this committee. he explained in his judgment and the judgment of the previous administration which he served, and has not been wise -- judge dewyze are beneficial to use withholding as a tactic to implement change. he was the author to his credit of some energetic reform initiatives that we have sustained and augmented. the reason it is not wise is because it does not work. it has been tried in the past and as -- resulted in our isolation and the loss of a crucial seat on the advisory committee on budgetary -- administrative and budgetary questions. we get -- that is the body where we get to scrub the budget and

we are not asked to pay for things that we think are unworthy. it is not the vehicle to achieve reform. we have achieved the greatest progress on reform under the previous administration and this administration. when we have worked to and been able to remain current on our assessed contribution. >> are there consequences of not paying our dues? >> it violates our treaty obligations. secondly, if we are in arrears, we can lose our vote. in the general assembly. >> some members have proposed shifting our contribution to the un on a voluntary basis. can you tell us how do we [unintelligible] that the un must undertake? can you talk about that? >> voluntary contributions can work to a certain extent in field operations. it has worked for unicef and wfp. it does not work when you were

talking about peacekeeping operations. [no audio] the two missions that have contributed to increases in the u.n. regular budget have been the un missions in iraq and afghanistan. those two missions are directly serving our interests. they have been formed at our initiative largely to augment and support the work of our troops in the field. we pay under the regular budget 22% of the cost of those missions which together, over half a billion dollars. if we took the view we would pay for those missions that we like , our share is $500 million. we would find ourselves paying 100% or close of costly,

important missions like that, rather than 22%. our net costs would quite likely be higher. as i mentioned, when it comes to the peacekeeping budget, there is no thing that we're asked to pay for that we have not previously voted to create. all of those missions are created by a vote in the security council and u.s. can say yes because we want it and we believe it serves our interests, or no. >> thank you. mr. rivera of florida. >> thank you. i want to go back to the issue of the punching bags. our greatest ally of being a punching bag of the united nations which i agree with. i want to talk about the united states being a punching bag,

particularly through u.s. policy toward cuba. i am wondering, we have a yearly vote, a yearly spectacle when the un uses the u.s. as a punching bag and votes against u.s. policy over isolating the castro dictatorship economically. even though as has been mentioned previously, the castro regime is a recognized state sponsor of terror by our government. it is a regime harboring fugitives from u.s. justice, including cop killers, drove traffickers, for regime that has murdered americans in international airspace as occurred in 1996. what what efforts do you make personally to try to garner support for u.s. policy towards

cuba? >> first of all, we firmly and unequivocally at every opportunity condemned for the very reason that you described cuba's human rights record and its longstanding record of abuses as well as its support for terrorism. secondly, a year before a resolution comes before the general assembly, we work hard to garner as many votes in conjunction with our position of voting against the resolution as we can muster. we have a small core of countries, including israel, that regularly and loyally stands with us. we are making efforts to expand that. but as you well know, as we strongly make our case for our policy, which is a bilateral

policy, we are in a minority -- a small minority. the embargo has limited international support. even our closest allies, like canada and european partners, do not share our views. this is an issue that has been and will remain an annual your tent. that may also addressed -- your irratent. cuba, once upon a time, had a lot of jews at the united nations and a lot of support and influence. that infamous as dramatically diminished. it is increasingly isolated. it is increasingly isolated within the general membership. we have heard about the human rights council and our frustration with that, which we share.

there are no more than five countries out of 47 of the human rights council at the present, cuba being one of them, whose record on human rights, we will all agree, is absolutely abysmal. they are either an outstanding countries or somewhere in the middle. cuba is at the bottom, but it is losing ground. at the human rights council this year, cuba worked very hard to block the creation of a special raconteur on freedom of assembly. it was roundly defeated. that passed unanimously by the human rights council. it also tried to upset the process of our periodic review. other countries supported the condemned cuba. >> i only have a minute left. i appreciate those comments. i take it speaks to the -- if

cuba is diminishing so much, it should allow space for you in your capacity to make even greater progress in bringing allies towards the united states position on cuba, in particular those allies to maybe do not have relationships with cuba. there are a lot of countries on the planet. i hope you make every effort to internationalize u.s. policy because it is the just policy considering what you just mentioned -- the abysmal human rights record of the cuban leadership. >> thank you, mr. rivera. mr. deutsch? >> thank you, madame chair. i want to turn to iran. as we look at recent events in the middle east, it seems that

iran has been emboldened. tuesday, a rating ambassador to the un said the geopolitical picture is changing in favor of iran. iran continues to move towards what position. the continue to evade international sanctions. i would like to commend you for the role you have played, first in the un sanctions against iran last year -- the efforts you help to spearhead to keep them all the human rights council, and the creation of the special session on human rights abuses. going forward, we the two events unfolding in the region and steps that can be taken to focus on the threats that iran -- if the regime continues to move ahead with its nuclear program,

with the security council imposed another round of sanctions to joke of the energy sector? i wonder if there had been discussions about strength -- about strengthening existing sanctions. of greater concern to me, if you could address when you think it would take to get china, who continues to make million dollar investments in iranian oil fields, to cooperate as support another resolution. >> for the ball, thank you for your kind words in support of our efforts with respect to iran. we have been very plain. we will stand up and condemn and seek to isolate iran for its human-rights record and its abuses on both multilaterally and nationally as we have continued to impose sanctions on individuals responsible for on individuals responsible for