i do not believe that eric holder's law firm had anything to do with the planned in new york. the decision was initially welcomed by mayor bloomberg, who said that it would be a good thing for those guests to be tried near the world trade center that -- near which they attacked. he subsequently changed his mind, deciding it would be disruptive to business in manhattan ganne. host: thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: now, live coverage of the house." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 4, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable mike fitzpatrick to act as

speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, for five minutes. mr. paul: i thank the speaker and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, osama bin laden applauded the 9/11 attacks, such an act of deliberate killing of innocent lives deserves retribution. it is good that bin laden is

dead and justice served. targeted retribution is far interior to -- superior to wars of aggression and nation building. i supported giving the president's authority for punishing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. using this authority and opportunity to pursue nation building and remaking the middle east was cynical and dangerous as the past 10 years have proven. the sad tragedy is that it took 10 years, trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of american casualties and many of thousands of innocent lives to achieve our mission of killing one evil person. a narrow-targeted mission under these circumstances is far superior to initiating wars against countries not involved in the 9/11 attacks. this was the reason i emphasized at the time the

principle of mark and reprisal, promoted to us -- provided to us by the constitution for difficult missions such as we faced. i'm convinced that this approach would have achieved our goal much sooner and much cheaper. the elimination of osama bin laden should now prompt us to bring our troops home from afghanistan and iraq. al qaeda was never in iraq, and we were supposedly in afghanistan to get osama bin laden. with bin laden gone there's no reason for our presence in this region unless indeed it was all about oil, nation building and remaking the middle east and central asia. hopefully bin laden does not get the last laugh. he claimed the 9/11 attacks were designed to, number one, get america to spread its

military dangerously and excessively throughout the middle east, to cause political dissension within the united states. 70% of the american people now believe we should leave afghanistan, yet, both parties seem destined to stafmente number three, and to bankrupt -- to stay. number three, and to bankrupt just as he did to the soviets. the best thing we could do is prove bin laden to be a false prophet. we must learn from this recent history. tragically, one result may be the acceptance of torture as a legitimate tool to pursuing our foreign policy. a free society calling itself a republic should never succumb to such evil. foreign aid to pakistan, though bin laden was safely there for 10 years, should question

robbing american citizens to support any government around the world with foreign aid. our failed foreign policy is reflected in our bizarre relationship with pakistan. we bomb them with our drones, causing civilian casualties, we give them billions of dollars in foreign aid and she protects america's enemy number one, bin laden, for a decade. it's time to consider a sensible, noninterventionist foreign policy as advised by our founders and authorized by our constitution. we would all be better off for it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes.

mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker, last weekend i had the honor of participating in a remarkable event in the mountain town in puerto rico. there, thousands brave a torrential downpour to propose against a natural gas pipeline that the current ruling party in puerto rico is threatening to build across the rain forest. i met the apple buds woman for the elderly. -- ambudswoman for the elderly. she speaks the truth what she hears and she sees from senior citizens. her term is 14 years longer than the governor and her money comes mainly from the federal government so she is uncorruptable, unasailable and thank god untouchable. she presented me with a series of letters she wrote to

attorney general eric holder. they are swarn afts residing in four towns of the proposed pipeline in puerto rico, describing how local seniors are being pressured and intimidated for the pipeline supposed unapproved right of way. ms. lopez says the older americans act has become a danger to the lives, health, property rights of the elderly population of puerto rico. she describes illegal trespassing into property of the elderly under the false pretext of measuring a nonexistent right-of-way, illegally trespassing in the homes of the elderly to generate a written proposition from the elderly to have a consent of property to the commonwealth of puerto rico. and the energy company, well below market value of the property without granting the elderly the opportunity to seek

counsel, a recent appraisal or to contest the eminent domain procedure which they are threatened with if they don't have a voluntary consent to sell their properties. these 41 affidavits are from four towns on the route of the proposed gas line. and i would like to first talk about one of them because i will read some short translations from some chilling stories that we have gathered here. and the first one is from antonio santiago cabrera who is in this picture. by the way, she was born in this home 69 years ago. she says the helicopters of the energy company constantly fly over my residence and they do so at a low altitude disturbing

my tranquility. since my home is built of tin, as you can see, my entire house trembles. that has generated much anxiety to me and for this reason i had to visit my primary doctor and have had to take medication for my nerves and heart condition -- and my heart condition has even worsened. then, there is this woman who is 82 years old and is pictured in front of her house with her sister, glor the gentleman from she says the letter i received are pretending to be a study to conduct the needs of the population and ended up being one about natural gas, the pipeline and the other things. in it exappropriation is in it. it is not explained. i do not understand it. we don't have a picture of the 67-year-old farmer. mr. guzman does not know how to

learn and can barely write, does not need to be fully educated, however, to know the difference between right and wrong. if only choosing between right and wrong could come to the ruling party of puerto rico. i ask unanimous consent that these affidavits be put into the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gutierrez: you know, i want to make it clear to you, mr. speaker, and to this body and to the attorney general, eric holder, that these are not powerful men and women. they are not legal scholars or real estate experts, but they have made simple pleas to the court and their complaints should be heard. they are worried that they will lose their homes, they will lose their crops which sustain them because of the laws and legal maneuvers they do not understand. they are u.s. citizens and need our help. i plan to post all of the affidavits i have already received along with hundreds of pages i have received from federal agencies under the freedom of information act on my website. the more light that is shined

on this project, mr. speaker, the more it reflects back a dark story of secrets, strong arming and shortcuts. i plan to continue shining my light and making as much information as possible so that the voice of the people of puerto rico is heard. mr. speaker, i ask that the affidavits presented in court in puerto rico from 18 senior citizens in one area, 10 in another and four along with the correspondents to from the puerto rico office from the apple budsman, an office funded by the federal government and official 14-year standing of the government of puerto rico be entered officially into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gutierrez: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for five minutes.

mr. lankford: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: thank you. abortion is one of the most divisive issues in america. one side sees the child in the womb is nothing like tissue, like a skin mold and no one can tell a woman if she can have that tissue removed from the body. and one sees it sucking its thumb, possessing unique d.n.a. and asks the question -- how can that not be a child? the debate about life will not be resolved today. though for the sake of millions who will die in the womb in abortion clinics i wish it could have been resolved yesterday. h.r. 3, that we'll be discussing all day today, asks the question -- should the federal government ever use taxpayer dollars to use or supplement abortions? isn't it common sense not to force a person who is

passionately opposed to the death of the urine born to assist in paying for the procedure? h.r. 3 also protects the conscience of health care providers and not to be forced to perform a procedure which violates their basic oath, do no harm? each year this congress votes to prohibit abortion funding through our appropriations process. it's time that we settle this issue permanently and clearly. no taxpayer funding support or tax incentives of abortion in any way for this year and any future year. in a day of skyrocketing debt, how can we justify supplementing abortion and saying that it's a necessary and essential element of government? i think we cannot. this is time to resolve this issue. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 3 today in that vote. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes.

mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in the great debate over oil and gas prices, there are actually many things we can all agree on. we agree our dependence on foreign oil endangers our environment, hurts our economy and weakens our national security. our disagreement lies in potential solutions. i believe that in order to lower gas prices we can and must crack down on oil speculators, end big oil handouts, invest in pb transit and increase corporate average fuel economy standards. the other side of the argument would have you believe that all we need to do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove reclamations. regulations that reportedly forced us to look outside our nation's borders for oil. our answers do not lie in more oil. our answers lie in conservation and smart investments. talk about smart investment. every increase of one mile per

gallon and auto fuel efficiency yields more oil that can be found in two arctic national wildlife refuges. an improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon will eliminate our need for all persian gulf oil. it's not a question of simple supply and demand either. another argument the side of this issue will use. oil prices are set on a global oil market. historically such small historically they have had little or no impact on world oil prices. the eia states in a 2008 report that arctic refuge oil production is, quote, not expected to have a large impact on world oil prices. noting that opec would neutralize any potential price impact of anwr coastal plain production by reducing its exports by equal amount.

again our answer does not lie in increased domestic oil production. our answer lies in conservation and a commitment to invest in renewable energy resources. recent energy -- increases in conservation and use of technologies has cut our nation's projected need for imported oil by more than 100 billion barrels. that's 10 times more benefit than we might be able to get during the same period from the arctic national wildlife refuge. without sacrificing one of our nation's most valued wilderness ecosystems. in the past few years, we have taken small steps to focus on conservation rather than production. in late 2007, corporate average fuel economy standards commonly known as cafe standards, received our first overhaul in more than 30 years. this was a huge step in the right direction. but there remains much work to do. the bills we will consider in

the coming week will endanger our environment, hurt our economy, and weaken our national security. it seems to me these are the very same concerns we had with an overreaching alliance and addiction to foreign oil. h.r. 1229 and 1230 supplant our national environmental policies, tell residents along our coast, we don't care how they feel about drilling in their waters, damage the ecosystem, and go against what military experts have been saying about drilling. just weeks ago several former military officers shared their thoughts and concerns, quote, america's dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the united states. and they continue to say they are concerned with congressional efforts to undermine the agencies charged with overseeing extraction. what they are saying is, it's important to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for our national security sake and it's important to retain regulatory authority to oversee

drilling and extraction of oil and gas. then you follow it's important to regulate our extraction to protect our nation. those do not offer solutions. what's worse a full year following the disaster of the deep water well, we have yet to reform our outer shelf -- concontinue nental shelf policy. but again you don't need to take my word for it. the u.s. energy information administration put out a 2009 report comparing the difference between full untree stricted offshore drilling and restricted. it found in 2020 restrictions on drilling versus unrestricted access had no impact on cost. the cost per barrel was identical. and in 2030, indiscriminate drilling would lower our gas prices by just three cents. take the calls for joining in the arctic refuge as another example. even at peak production in 2030, arctic refuge oil would account for .6 of world oil

production and only 2.4% of u.s. oil consumption. we can proactively move our nation toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil so we can take control of our energy future. protect our nation, our economy, and our environment. and we must. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. if your car is speeding into a ditch, the only thing to do to survive is to slam the brakes as fast and hard as you can. anything else only stalls the disaster to come. at this moment america is speeding into bankruptcy and the only way to stop the descent and save our country is to slam the brakes on government spending and set our nation on a brand new fiscal trajectory. critical times call for critical measures.

the american people deserve honest and courageous leadership from washington that will act to save the future of our great nation. the path to prosperity would lift the crushing burden of record high debt, spur economic growth and job creation and fulfill our nation's obligation to the health and retirement security of every american. with the path to prosperity, the budget that republicans adopted in the house two weeks ago, americans will be back on the road to more jobs for today and a bankrupt-free nation for tomorrow. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy, for five minutes. mrs. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. before i begin to share my thoughts this morning about how the republican budget is a blow to our american ideas and

priorities, i would be remiss if i didn't use this opportunity to praise our men and women in uniform, our president, and his advisors for the extraordinary courage and capability they all demonstrated in the mission that put an end to osama bin laden on sunday. being from new york, we know firsthand of the consequences of this horrible, horrible action that osama bin laden took on september 11, 2001. i can't tell you how many families in my district, in my congressional district, were hurt, lost their loved ones, children becoming orphans in ways that's going to take years if forever to recover. that's why sunday was so important. it was a moment in history, our history. we told the world as americans we are going to fight not only for each other but we are going to fight for our rights, our

ideas, that are at the core of our very being. i would hope that the aftermath of sunday we will be able to come together in the way that we did after september 11. we need to find more ways to come together. we need to work together for the good of our constituents, for the good of our country. but that doesn't mean that we don't have extraordinary differences of opinion. and that's what i'm here to talk about today. i'm here to talk about the budget and the house republican majority just passed and i voted against on april 15. i believe that the budget is a document that lays out the wrong priorities. trust me when i say that i'm anxious as anyone about our nation's fiscal policies. but we also need to make sure that in the process we do not kill thousands of jobs and hurt millions of american families. as a budget as far as i'm concerned, is a moral document. it should be a declaration of our country's priorities.

but the republican budget does anything but that. it hurts our most vulnerable citizens while giving tax breaks to the oil companies. let me tell you, i spent over 33 years as a nurse before i came to congress. the one thing that strikes me every week when i come down to washington is the disconnect that i see between a lot of the politicians here and the people who are back home struggling in my district. and the budget that was passed by the republicans is absolutely out of touch with the people back in my district. how in the world can you undermine the health and well-being of our seniors? at the same time that you continue to give the richest companies on the planet tax breaks. that's not what the people in my district want. the seniors and all the people in my district, they do want health care. they feel like as they get older they want peace of mind to know that they have the access to the greatest health care system in the world.

they have paid for that right and as they work throughout their life, they paid into the medicare system. and they believe that they have the rights to medicare and i do agree with them. yet the republicans' budget fundamentally undermines that right. the republican budget ends medicare as we know it. it eliminates guaranteed coverage for our seniors and turns the program into a voucher program. this is a drastic, drastic concept. let's not try to pretty things up here. republicans are essentially pushing seniors into the private marketplace where they will pay more and get less. and as health care keeps rising with inflation, these vouchers will not keep pace. as the congressional budget office has said, medicare beneficiaries would bear a much larger share of their health care costs. the result would be absolutely awful for our seniors. we are going to see our parents and our sisters and our brothers faced with awful

choices. are they going to be paying higher premiums? are they going to have to get their health care plans cover less or even worse will they drop out and have no health care at all? cutting our health care system isn't the only way that our families are being hurt. the high price of gas is certainly hurting the families across this country and certainly in new york. across the country and definitely on long island, the price of gas has climbed way above $4. yet what is absolutely a mind-boggling position, republicans in congress still refuse to vote to allow a vote to repeal the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that oil companies are getting. excellent -- exxon, for instance, just took in $10.7 billion during the first three months of the year alone. that's the 69% increase over the same time frame from last year. other companies have enjoyed

the same increases. all while continuing to receive $4 billion annually in subsidies. mr. speaker, we are americans. we can disagree, but we are supposed to be fighting for this country. we need to make sure we protect our seniors. we need to make sure we have jobs. we need to make sure that we keep this country safe. god bless america. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers, for five minutes. mrs. ellmers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks into the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. ellmers: two weeks ago on saturday, april 16, north carolina was struck with a vicious tornado that caused unprecedented destruction and despair throughout the state and in my district. the loss of property will take years to rebuild, but the lives that were lost can never be

replaced. in an instant lives were cut short leave families with a gaping hole that can never be filled. with over 24 deaths throughout the state, this tragedy has touched each of us on a personal level. our district was hit especially hard with six of our 10 counties affected. but thanks to the resources provided by president obama and his emergency declaration, and the officials of fema, we have been able to turn this tragedy into a swift recovery. on behalf of all north carolinians i would like to thank the officials at fema, the american red cross, the small business administration, and the emergency first responders for taking swift action and providing our district with supplies, funding, and on the spot

guidance for victims. while we still have a tough road ahead, our district can take heart in the fact that every step is being taken to ensure that help will reach everyone affected and in swift and efficient manner. i hope that all americans will keep the residents and families of north carolina and those families in alabama and the other states that have been so terribly affected in their prayers as we continue to work in the rescue effort going forward. thank you. god bless america. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, for five minutes. mr. altmire: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the small business innovation

research program. for over a quarter century, sbir has been key for american competitiveness around the world. its provided quality research -- it's provided quality research, and allowed innovative small businesses to partner with the government for the development of some of today's most cutting-edged goods and services. the region i represent in western pennsylvania is home to a number of companies that have benefited from the sbir program. yet these companies have been faced with uncertainty over the past few years because congress has failed to act on a full re-authorization. short-term extensions are putting the future of research and development at risk in this fragile economy, congress owes it to these innovators to give them the certainty they need to fully pursue their ideas. i have supported legislation to re-authorize this program for the past four years because i understand the importance of innovation and the federal

government's unique role in creating a fertile climate for it. in the past whenever our nation has bounced back from economic downturns, innovation has been the catalyst. time and again invan hollenive ideas have led to new product -- inventive ideas have led to new products and putting us on a path back to prosperity. this year i have joined with my colleagues on the small business committee to introduce a full three-year re-authorization of the sbir program. as congress looks for ways to reduce spending yet keep america globally competitive, the sbir program is that rare piece of legislation that can accomplish both goals simultaneously. . at its most fundamental, the sbir program provides valuable seed money to explore untested concepts and have new products.

it helps small businesses today in helping them access capital. it would make important changes to the current program that would allow more entrepreneurs to participate by allowing companies that receive funding from multiple venture capital groups to exceptively apply for a portion of sbir grants. re-authorization of sbir will allow us to continue to foster research and innovation that will translate into a wealth of new employment opportunities and economic growth for western pennsylvania and all of america. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation that encourage creativity and ensures america will stay a global leader in innovation for years to come. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise this morning to comment on the passing of a dear friend and oregonian icon, former congressman robert duncan, who died last week at age 90. bob served his nation with distinction beginning with his service during world war ii in both the merchant marine and the u.s. navy. after graduating from the university of michigan law school, he settled in medford, oregon, with his wife, mary jane. he was a state legislator and for the first time in oregon history he served two terms as speaker. from there he went to serve in congress representing the fourth congressional district in southwest oregon until he was persuaded by president lyndon johnson to leave

congress and run for a vacated u.s. senate seat against governor mark hatfield. in a campaign that defined oregon politics for over a decade, bob lost narrowly to mark hatfield in a heated campaign, to say the very least, focusing in large measure over the united states' involvement in the war in vietnam which he then supported and mark hatfield opposed. a significant development was the endorsement of then democratic u.s. senator wayne morris of republican mark hatfield, and many experts feel that that was the narrow margin of victory of mark hatfield over bob duncan. later, bob almost won the

democratic primary against wayne morris when he ran for re-election and set up shock waves that reverberated for a decade. i first had the opportunity to work with bob duncan when i was directing a campaign to lower oregon's voting age in 1969 and he was a zealous supporter of engaging young people in the plit account process. in 1974 bob made history again by being the first oregonian to represent a different geographic area in the state in congress as he was elected to the third congressional district, which i'm now primplingd to represent. -- privileged to represent. and he continued for another six years, serving on the appropriations committee of distinguished service. after leaving congress in 1981,

bob returned to private practice as a lawyer in portland and washington, d.c., and later served on the northwest planning tower council. bob had many passions in his life but none more important than his family. he was maried 48 years to mary jane until her death in 1989, and later he married kathy bowe and found many years of happiness. bob had seven children who survive him, nancy, angus, david, jamie, lori, bonnie and jeannie. he was a stubborn political animal, generous of spirit with a legacy for courage, strengthened by his convictions. he was a man of great humor, intellect and conviction.

he was also thrifty to an extent that his legendary to family and friends and many of his constituents. until the end of his life, i would get letters from him in a series of three cents and the old congressional stamp scratched off. he was very good with the taxpayer money which drove even his supporters to distraction. he leaves a legacy for courage, the strength of his convictions, the accomplishment of decades of service, particularly a decade to two very diverse congressional districts, that were united in the admiration of this dedicated public servant. he will be missed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, mr.

langevin, for five minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to join together to immediately address one of the greatest problems facing our families and small business right now. that's rapidly rising gas prices. as i traveled across rhode island during the district work period, the issue of high gas prices was never far from anyone's minds. it affects every family's bottom line. and our fragile economy -- as a fragile economy continues, it is imperative that we work to find solutions in the short term as we turn our attention towards a serious long-term solution to reduce our demand

for oil. our nation simply cannot have low gas prices without reducing the amount of oil we use. now, we main in constant competition right now with india, china and our developing nations and the world does not have the resources to continue to supply us with cheap oil, continuing the disruption in the middle east that hurts production. now, i supported a bill that took steps to improve vehicle fuel standards and energy efficient technology in our buildings and homes while investing in clean energy, including an increased commitment to the research and development of offshore wind. now, we should put our money behind those efforts instead of giving bills of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies. as we just recently heard, exxonmobil just reported first quarter earnings of $11 billion and nearly 70% increase with other oil companies following closely behind.

mr. speaker, let's eliminate subsidies for these big corporations that don't need our help. in the short term, congress was part nerd with president obama and support attorney general irk holder's efforts to safeguard consumers against unlawful practices. we also need stricter guidelines getting speculators out of the market. we need guidelines for people who buy oil just to sell it at a profit, perhaps, by allowing people to buy oil in the market only if they can actually receive product. additionally, i urge my colleagues to pressure oil companies to drill domestically on already existing leases. the oil is drilling on less than a quarter of the 80 million acres where it already has leases approved. while this is not a long-term solution, we need responsible drilling on land where there are existing leases. now, this is a, i believe, a faster, fair and safer path to more domestic production,

unlike legislation on the floor last week -- this week which will put oil rig workers and the environment at risk by expediting critical safety reviews. none of this, however, lessens the urgency of switching to alternative fuels. the u.s. is only 1.4% of the world's proven oil reserves but consumes 22% of the world's oil. in the long run, we'll remain susceptible to repeats of the current crisis unless we take every opportunity to decrease our dependence on oil. i want to highlight an important initiative in my state that involves public transportation. the rhode island public transit authority acquired 53 new hybrid buses and is upgrading 10 trollies to hybrid production. ripa expects to save 20% on fuel usage which will help prevent price increases and route closures.

now, we should build on the success that rhode island has by highing fuel efficiency standards. complicated problems, like the price of gasoline, also require difficult solutions but we cannot let this prevent us from moving forward and delivering to our constituents who cannot afford these costs or a slowed economic recovery. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to work together to enact short-term provisions and long-term solutions to bring relief to working families and small business. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule >> for legislative business, they are expected to continue debate on repealing parts of the health care law, including a measure to continue to block taxpayer funding of abortion.

live coverage when the house gavels back in here on c-span. in the meantime, we are going to take you live to the cannon house office building where the house homeland security committee is holding a hearing on mass transit security issues in this country. that's the chairman, peter king. witnesses today include the heads of t.s.a. and fema, got under way at 10:00 a.m. and we'll stay with it until the house comes back at noon. >> within 12 to 24 hours of massive explosions on the new york city subway system. if you put in some context what that plan would have achieved -- if they were able to carry out that plan, the impact it would have on the new york city subway system? >> mr. chairman, all these attacks on subway systems are designed not to cause the system's infrastructure to collapse. they are designed to terrorize the public. so as to cause people to have

grave concerns about boarding a train, going to work, going to visit friends, going about their lives. and that type of terror if applied in any type of consistent way, could -- would, in fact, substantially diminish the economic life of a city, the vitality of the city, and to a city of new york, if you do that to the subway system, you're essentially choking the city, choking the air out of the city. and you could potentially could, and this is the -- i think part of the whole reason why you attack transit systems, you hope it will bring the life of the city to basically kill it. kind of impose a kind of level of fear over the population so that all of the activity that we need to engage in on a daily

basis to keep the city strong, vital, alive, would be su sanctionly de -- substantially diminished. that was the major concern about zazi. something like that has not happened in new york. we want to make sure that doesn't happen. everyone feels they can board the train, move about freely. i heard mr. fugate says how he uses the subway, goes on amtrak. he does so, he depends on it. and he wants to be able to do that without feeling he's going to be blown up. or have someone come in and shoot him to death. and i think every member of this committee understands how important mass transit is, public transit is to the economic life of the united states and major cities. that's just economic life. it's cultural life. it's life. it's moving about is not just a matter of finances and economics.

it's a question of how people live. and what these terrorist attacks are designed to do is to really attack our way of life. to atack not just subways but all kinds of activities. and the public's fear so as to -- so as to bring life, ordinary, regular life that people depend on to an end. we feel the investment this committee has supported over the years is extraordinarily important. we depend in large part on federal funding to help us achieve the type of security we want. we know we have the continued support of the committee given even finance, current budgetary constraints. for the type of emission that we are -- mission we are engaged in, everyone here in this table is engaged in day to day. >> you touched on it in your

testimony. can you amplify more on the viper system, how successful it's been, how accepted it is, and do you see it expanding at all? do you see the need to expand it? explain what it is so all the members will understand what it consists of. >> mr. chairman, the whole premise is to provide an unpredictable deterrent to those who may want to cause harm. whether it's the 77 bombers in london who, the five with backpacks, nine backpacks, question of how many other people may have been involved, the idea is if we can present a visible presence, police presence ideally with canine, we know from debriefing of people who have cooperated once they pled. three main deter rents are the uniform -- deterrents are the officers, canine, and cctv is

good if you don't have a suicide bomber but as we know with the 77 bombers, and 7/21/2005 in london. one actually looked at the tv before going underground. the idea is to be a deterrent. and the measure of success is difficult to quantify to say do we deter a terrorist attack today? the whole point is to attempt to deter and push off to another day which gives the intelligence community, the law enforcement community the opportunity to identify and intercept a punitive terrorist. >> thank you. ranking member is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. fugate you referenced m.o.u. that's been signed between fema and t.s.a. could you make that m.o.u. available to the committee? >> yes, sir. >> and it's your testimony that

it covers those items that previously had been identified as weaknesses in the system? >> yes, sir. in addition to that as you pointed out the performance measures are being implemented in 2011 grant cycle as recommended by the i.g. so i think that we would be more than happy to provide back to you and your staff and the committee as a whole the actions we have taken to address the i.g. and general accounting office findings. >> thank you. i'm convinced that's an important aspect. to the operators of transit systems, we'll start with new york first if that's all right. if these funds were not available to provide security enhancements, what would new york have to do?

>> if they weren't made available, we would have to try to find money from -- we would have to try to strip money away from other types of activities we are engaged in that protect the public. we would have to -- if the money wasn't available we would have to try to find money from other sources from state and local tax revenue to support our counterterrorism activities. some of what we do simply wouldn't be possible. the domain wareness system we have created, which is the fiberoptic length around the city where we have computers which gather up information from cameras, license plate readers, other data sources in real time. simply wouldn't be possible without federal money, for example. some of our deployments we have

where we put enormous amounts of officers on to platforms would be very, very difficult without federal money. it would compromise the level of security we have. >> mr. rodriguez? >> yes. the chicago transit authority, the only means we would have for actually finding any additional funds separate from the homeland security funds would be operational funds. we generate half of our own revenues from our customers, from advertisements, and concessions. the other half truly comes in subsidized from sales taxes and small amount from real estate transfer taxes, both of which unfortunately give the economic condition of our country have been challenging for the past two years. the question you are posing is where we would find the money, the answer is operational funds. meaning i would have to further reduce service in what's already been done. the chicago transit authority in february of last year had to reduce about 18% of our bus hour service. basically cut service about 20%

across not just the city of chicago but the 40 suburbs we service as well, and 9% of rail hours. we have downsized our organization by 10%. so we have taken significant hit in terms of the capacity and the service we provide. any further reduction in funds from department of homeland security would impact that. separate and apart from that there's about $50 million that both the c.p.a. and chicago police department combine spend annually on safety and security related expenses not reimbursed by the department of homeland security. so separate from that there is a greater need as well. >> sir, without the ability to fin the partnerships that we have developed through the sourcers that are located from federal sources, i fear that we would cease to exist and cease to provide the level of security we currently have. the restrictions based upon state and local funding resources in the state of

california are extremely diminished. i would agree with mr. rodriguez that we would refer to an operational contribution which would further impact the services we supply at bart. the value of these partnerships and the value of the funds to complete these security projects if they did not exist, we would work with what we have, but we would try to achieve more with less. we would not achieve the success levels we currently experience. >> thank you. po -- the point you made is given some of the challenges we are facing right now, i think it's inconceivable that we ought to, as members of congress, and this committee, vote to cut any transit security dollars. some members of this committee already have voted earlier in

the year to do that, and i would just say that any further cuts based on the testimony from new york, chicago, and the bay area would be absolutely detrimental. i would just like to make sure the record reflects that this testimony from people who do it every day as well as in the business who administer the programs for us, that personnel, that k nines, other en-- canines, other enhancements that have gone in to securing these facilities, would be jeopardized if any further cuts were made. i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member. i would add to that i know new york and i assume the other municipalities, too, new york gets very small percentage in reimbursement compared to what it spends on homeland security. so as it is the situation is, tough enough for new york, over 1,000 police officers dedicated

to counterterrorism, i think any significant portion of that on the mass transit system. i recognize the gentleman from alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. rogers. mr. rogers: the only question i had was on the system for mr. pistol. these viper organization or groups deployed solely based on risk or is there another criteria? >> congressman rogers, it is primarily based on risk. we are trying to make sure that we are in those locations and at those times which present the greatest risk. there may be other criteria simply based on some ad hoc retirements. but almost always based on risk. >> that's all i've got, mr. chairman. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for calling this hearing. thank all of the witnesses for coming.

mr. rodriguez i know your tenure is about to expire. as president of the chicago transit authority and i want to take this opportunity to commend you for your tremendous public service to not only the citizens of chicago but certainly to the nation because chicago as we know is the transportation hub and center of transportation for the nation. so the outstanding work that you have done as commissioner of aviation as well as the head of the chicago transit thorte -- authority speaks volumes for what you have meant to our city as well as for the country. thank you very much for that service. you testified that the chicago transit authority had received high marks in all categories. of security inspection and my

question is one, how did you manage to obtain that rating from homeland security? and what is it that we need to do to make sure that chicago's transit authority can continue in the vain that you have led it? >> thank you very much forethe kind words, congressman. the two things that i can say to respond to both your questions, number one is having obtained the high grades i almost look to my colleague, mr. pistole, who is the one who gave us the award on having received high marks. but the reality is we have a great team. we have great person for example, amy, who is sitting directly behind me, the chief of safety and security for the entire organization. i gave her full credit for having obtained the award we received. but more importantly to your second question is, what it is you can do to help us continue

doing what we are doing. it's a funding issue. the bottom line it's a funding issue. as i mentioned separate and apart from the grants we currently received, we out of pocket an additional $50 million per year both ourselves in combination with the chicago police department on transit security related services. so any thought of reducing what we already received would be extremely detrimental to our system. again keeping in mind that our name is somewhat of a misnomer, although we are called the chicago transit authority we serve the region, city of chicago and 40 different suburbs. it would be detriment to the economy for the entire region. if we had somehow continued to reduce service to upkeep the security initiatives that we have in place. so it's additional funding, sir. >> let me thank you very much. and i want to echo sentiments expressed by the ranking member and by the chairman that it appears to me that funding is

absolutely essential and that is funding from the federal government level. i don't see any way that state and local governments can provide what is needed. so i again commend you for your outstanding service and, mr. chairman, i have no further questions. and yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i asked the record to show to show restraint when you said chicago is the leading transit system in the country. thank mr. rodriguez for the service. i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, former united states attorney, mr. moreno. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can't compete with new york or other large metropolitan areas, but being u.s. attorney i do understand what these gentlemen have to deal with on a daily basis. i certainly appreciate what you do. aside from the funding, that's the critical aspect here, could

each of you take about a minute because i have less than five minutes, and describe your relationship with other agencies, federal, state, and local, and how that is going? i'm not asking you to be critical but asking you to state the facts and how thorough we are in exchanging information, cooperating from top to bottom and side to side. mr. pistole, please. >> thank you, sir. for t.s.a. since i started last july one of the first things i learned is that t.s.a. can't be all things to all people, all place, all times when it comes to recognizing we can never fully eliminate the risk but we can do a lot of things in eliminating the risk. the best thing we do that is through partnerships, whether it's joint training, i think entities, agencies that train together, perform well together, also get to the issue of resiliency because unfortunately i believe it is not a question of if but when there will be an

attack here on the homeland. how do we prepare for that attack and respond to it? information sharing is a key part of that. >> thank you. >> the grant administrator we work a lot of partners. i have to for your benefit for the chairman's benefit, i cannot express how glad i am that john pistole took the position as the administrator of t.s.a. i think we have a much stronger working relationship. obviously when we are working with our locals it's important that d.h.s. speaks with one voice as they are the experts. and i think john has been a strong partner in improving that relationship. i cannot give him enough credit. he was instrumental in helping us get the m.o.u. with t.s.a. and fema to make sure we are serving our locals and states with one voice from d.h.s. . >> thank you. >> we have an excellent

relationship with t.s.a. and fema. we also have a close relationship with federal law enforcement and intelligence community. we have over 120 detectives and other officers at the jttf in new york. we have forces here, law enforcement and public safety agencies. we have a very good relationship with the port authority. amtrak on railroad, new jersey transit. in fact, hosts various meetings to coordinate rail transit and safety and security issues. we also have very good relationships with local law enforcement offices in the region where we have outreach and relationships, including joint training operations with other law enforcement operation -- offices. i would say overall we have excellent relationships, both, federal, state and local. >> thank you. >> i would echo the exact same sentiment of the amount of

communication we receive in our region. we're very -- we work very well with fema, with the illinois emergency management agency as well. what the city of chicago has done very well for the past number of years we have the office of emergency management and it's the hub for state agencies and city agencies to communicate about any type of disaster preparedness for the city of chicago and its region. one of the things has improved our communication is our ability to better operate the cctv cameras. if you look at the transit system as it spreads out from the central business district and throughout the region, cover the best fiber-optic regions and everyone loves to use our system and we welcome the use of our system and our cameras. so thousands of cameras i think has improved the ability for us to communicate effectively and

very well. >> thank you. >> congressman, twice yearly sponsored by fema, t.s.a., the safety security executives from the top 50 -- i believe the 50 largest transit agencies meet, the expertise and knowledge at those exchanges is invaluable. that said, bart will celebrate its 40th year of service this coming september 11. jat at this table, the lady and gentleman provide support to my system, specifically -- we're basically in the embryo stage of the transportation business. i make many phone calls. i don't have a lot of answers myself personally but i know a lot of people that point me in the right direction. so the contact that are created through these transportation and safety and security opportunities, again, are invaluable. without the support of these agencies represented here today we would struggle. >> thank you, gentlemen.

>> chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for this hearing. i thank the more frequently we address our opportunities and oversight and security the more effective and important our committee becomes in light of recent incidents that showed how great america is. and i could not be in a homeland security hearing without again expressing my appreciation to the national security team, including the united states military and president of the united states for the historic effort that ended the face of demise of terrorism, osama bin laden. it doesn't lessen the

responsibility for those of you at this table, for the general responsibilities of your job. in chicago, and i believe san francisco. and then the administrators here in washington, we now have the opportunity to be ever ready for the potential of collateral damage. so this hearing is enormously important for these grants, focus on the infrastructure of transportation and how we are continuing our protection. let me also acknowledge my concern and sympathy for those in alabama. my colleague and chairman of the committee, i serve as ranking member, had his community impacted and i know we are forever vigilant on being able to help the people of the renal that suffered with the massive tornadoes. i appreciate you returning my phone call on the issues i just expressed, and i look forward

to us getting a a meeting scheduled. what i do want to inquire -- and i do want to add my appreciation for the immediate work for fema that i perceived as this tragedy move forward. let me just ask you quickly, what is the role of fema in the transportation security grants, just very quickly, because i want to speak to mr. crystal, please. >> yes, our primary role is to administer the grant programs, to provide the oversight and monitoring the performance of those grants. but the subject matter experts is really with the transportation security administration. >> and let me say you've done that well. my next points will not be a reflection on how fema has handled it. let me focus on something i'm

particularly concerned about. you are quoted that surface inspectors are the jack-of-all-trades, and if you believe they are specialists enough, would you call them experts? would you call the surface inspectors experts? and if so, what kind of experts are they? what is their educational background and years of experience? in terms of the people you would hire because i think this is very much part of the grants . and what kind of training is provided for surface inspectors? what is the duration of the training, and how often is this type of training occurring? and i would also ask the question why we don't merge the whole administrative and selection process under t.s.a. because fema certainly has a lot of other responsibilities. so the main issue is the training of surface inspectors

and what kind of individuals do you select. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> and how many hours do you believe they should be in training? >> so the general construct is that all of our surface inspectors go through a five-week basic training. i visited a training in oklahoma and that basic training is to ensure that whether it's cargo or aviation, they have the ability to assist on that. they continue, whether it's one, two, three-week schools, but that will continue over the course of their career. in terms of the baseline qualifications, the class of 23 that i just met with ranged across the board. so they have a good understanding and work experience before ever coming to t.s.a. so they understand how things should be done and

when things are not working right what can be done to address and remediate those problems. i can get you the exact statistics on -- or the figures on the demographics, terms of work experience, age. i was struck by -- because i want to ask each one to give me their background -- i was struck by the wealth of experience that they brought to the table. >> mr. pistole, it's come to my attention that there's only one-week training on surface transportation. i need you to explain that. and how much training do you think they need to become experts? we need training on achilles heels. >> i agree. the more training that they can receive and the better experience and training and just their experience before coming to t.s.a. are all critical factors. so we are looking to expand that training to specialize. we want every surface inspector

to have a broad base. those who have specializes training, and they do, it's a question of how much can we do while they're also doing the critical functions that we ask them to do. >> mr. chairman -- >> could i just put a question on the record for him to put in writing, please? >> yes. >> mr. pistole, would you provide me with the staffing that our -- your closest advisors and the diversity and the numbers of years they've been in t.s.a., i'd like them by diversity and as well male, female, etc., and ethnic diversity, your key advisors, please. >> gladly. >> thank you. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania, also united states attorney and chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism, five minutes. >> i thank you -- i think you

probably passed over one of the important qualifications, as i regularly used to take the subway into work when i worked at the u.s. attorney in philadelphia. we discussed a little bit of the issue today about funding. certainly always a battle, and i also appreciate some of the important oversight responsibilities because there's nothing worse than sending money down the line that isn't well spent, but there's a real issue with money that's still out there. reporting to a g.a.o. report, mr. fugate, that discussed that in -- only 3% of the money from 2005 to 2007 in the study had found its way down the line. and my understanding is that as of last year or early this year we're still looking at only 13% of the funding which has already been put in place that's available is in the line of being spent. where's the problem? what can we do to fix it so

money that's already been appropriated that's sitting there is well used? >> well, i think there are several pieces of this. i think it challenges. i served as the state administrator of agency. whenever we got into a capital project when we would do construction, we would not only have the grant program, we had the state regulations to go through, bids. some these projects take multiple years to fund and to complete. but we also recognize there's something we can do about the lack of drawdown, and that is to bring visibility to remaining balances that states have that they are clear to bring and seek reimbursement for. often times as we go through those drawdowns, by showing those outstanding balances to some of the senior leadership, it's starting to move those dollars more rapidly. they're making those requests more timely. i think it's part of the challenges, recognizing that

unlike operational costs, such as dog, k-9 units and other things, you spend those funds, you seek your reimbursement in that calendar year. the reconstruction projects have take longer. one of the key steps is to show the remaining balances and that is causing a lot of the senior leadership to recognize the urgency of getting those dollars, not just obligated. this is what we have to -- they obligate the moneys, but to drawdown the work rapidly so we can show those funds have been received by the state and local. >> is that where you're largely seeing these things at least being focused on is construction-based projects right now as opposed to operational? >> yes. the operational we see coming much quicker. as these work up through the system we're looking where our bottle next are. it's important as we get these in that we actually show -- the terminology sometimes drives me nuts.

the term obligated means we spent the money against that grant. but if you haven't drawn those dollars down it still shows an outstanding balance. so we're trying to move past just merely obligating it isn't addressing the issue. we need you to have those dollars not spent to be drawn down. >> get them into a project that's doing something, for instance, enhancing security systems, to get these protections on the line. let in ask a question, maybe mr. pistole can answer this, how can we look to assure what funding is put is tied to vulnerability assessments so that these dollars that we get are being spent and the way that the prolvingsals believe are going to have the -- professionals believe are going to have the greatest impact of somebody not carrying out an act of terrorism in our transportation system? >> thanks, congressman. we worked with the intelligence community, law enforcement community in the industry to

see what is the most vulnerable points in the system. so, for example, whether it is a path tunnel between new jersey, new york, if something catastrophic happens, what will be the impact, not the loss of human life, but the economic impact, as described earlier? so there is a thorough assessment that's done. there's a ranking of those done. i'll make it available to the committee. so we look at that and say, how can we then use and basically invest those funds in the most prudent ways to buy down that risk? so we can't just spread out the money everywhere across the country. in my hometown in indiana, there's been -- all the years i've been doing this, there's never been anything in the threat nature to identifying that hometown as a target. so we try to look at those areas where there is the greatest risk in vulnerability and how we can apply that money in that fashion. >> just one closing comment. i know in the aftermath of the very wonderful events that

happened just the other day, i know we are all so quite aware of the potential for repercussions and one of the first places we all look are in the transit systems and i want to express my appreciation to those of you who are on the front lines. i know you are already beginning to work in a collaborative fashion to try to strengthen the utilization, the resources we have dedicated to keep them safer at this sensitive time. so good luck to you. >> thank you. the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for -- excuse me -- thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you to our ranking member and let me also thank our panelists for bringing their expertise on this very important hearing this morning. my question is really to those of you who operate transit systems. as has already been stated by a number of my colleagues, in the wake of the demise of osama bin laden, we must all prepare ourselves for possible

retalitory events, and i want to use this opportunity to implore all americans to remain vigilant and to remember if they see something to say something. terrorist events around the world have shown that mass transit systems, like other modes of transportation, are oftentimes targets of attacks. new york city has one of the largest subway systems in the world. as well as one of the most complex and sbri indicate bus transportation networks -- intricate bus transportation networks. a plot to attack the new york city subway systems was thwarted in september of 2009 and the metropolitan transportation security has worked hard to keep passengers safe, as i know our other transit systems have. my question is -- how would these cuts in transit security

in the transit security grant program potentially hurt your progress, maybe training workers, equipment upgrade and repairing the system? i personally believe that we must at least support a maintenance of effort in terms of funding but at best i think we should consider a line item funding from our federal budget that wo keep our nation's mass -- would keep our nation's mass transit system in a forward leaning posture. i think if you could in the remaining time also address what your agencies are doing to exercise evacuation plans. the public does not hear enough about that and i know what took place on 9/11 there's always mass hysteria. i want you to tackle both those questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> congresswoman, the --

certainly if there's a reduction in funding it will compromise to some extent the security of the transit system. there will have to be reductions in training. some of the deployments we use. and quite frankly it would be impossible to compensate through the loss of federal money from local revenues. i think that is common sense. we have an evacuation for each borough. and we also have the office of emergency management has a -- working right now with federal d.h.s. money on a catastrophic study which involves evacuation as well.

from the new york city police department perspective, we think we have sound evacuation plans in place. >> yes, ma'am, to answer that question. the office of emergency management and communications is basically the centerpiece of us conducting any type of evacuations, both in our subway cities and across chicago itself. we pulled together the police department, the fire department, federal agencies as well and we've done some exercises of basically evacuating downtown areas in the case of an emergency. that's something the mayor has done very aggressively in his tenure there. the c.t.a. and our network has reversed commute and moved everyone out. those evacuations will continue and they are funded with the department of homeland security funding so that would be a huge blow to us. separate and apart from that, i would very much welcome a steady stream of ongoing funds

because the reality is, taking the cameras as a topic as we've been discussing, is the initiatives we have of continue installing cameras, thermal cameras in our subway system and throughout the entire network, we would have to delay a project. technology changes. we have to continue maintaining these. we have cameras in our systems that are analogue that are five-year-old technology. with the high deaf technology that's available now, we could install one camera in the place of five now. we have to continue making that investment. an lytics which would require much less human monitoring of the cameras. a line eye -- a line item, you would say, would be welcomed. >> congresswoman, the boots on the ground, uniforms, the front line employees, people involved within my system that have

received training about terrorism awareness and recognition will serve them forever. that's a given. what we fail to have is do you have the ability to enhance layers of security to have a serious cost to them within our infrastructure? technology, my property has a unique, unique location. the second longest underwater tube in the world. the design process alone is a huge challenge. how does that translate in what we look at the 1989 earthquake? we represent earthquake country in northern california. our evacuation plans are tied to the office of emergency services. it's a unique system when you look at the transportation system. it's first get the people out of the transportation location and control that chaos. we witnessed it. we've been very lucky. the lessons learned from those

opportunities are to enhance those evacuation plans. we train on a regular basis. most recently three weeks ago with all of our local first responders within northern california and specifically the city of oakland, not just police and firefighters, medical, office of emergency services, those drills go on in a regular basis. i think we're well prepared. the training aspect is a fully funded source as well. we need those funds to continue to provide layers of security, training is at the top of the list. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from illinois, mr. walsh, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member and all the guests who came to testify. mr. pistole, quick question. t.s.a.'s more than doubled the size of its inspectors and its surface transportation security inspection program in the last few years. explain how t.s.a. assesses how this increased number of

inspectors is actually improving security and where they're most needed. >> thank you, congressman. there are a number of areas. i'd highlight a couple of the most significant. one is in our certified cargo screening program so we use inspectors to go in and actually inspect over 1,160 companies that do screening of cargo, that go either on cargo planes or as we know most along passenger planes. so we work with private industry to assure that cargo is being properly screened, especially given the human cargo plot last october. we need to trust and verify in a sense. we need to inspect each of those to make sure they are doing it to our standards. i will note that we have found several instances where some of that screening was being falsified. there are investigations going on, civil and criminal, as to

individuals who certify they were doing the screening when it wasn't being properly done. those are the key areas. there are other areas but that's the key area. >> great. thanks. to our guests involved with training. what kind of training do your workers receive when it comes to security matters and do we distinguish between ticket agents and mechanics and the various types of training they receive when it comes to security issues? if you could each touch upon that. >> the fleet department provides security through its police officers, so our training is primarily provided to police officers. the -- and they receive a full range of training, including how to utilize equipment like bomb detection equipment, to

detect terrorist activity, how to respond in the case of someone with a gun or bomb, what type of response. training's a lot of that type. and much of that training is provided with transportation and security grant money. >> mr. rodriguez. >> so similar to what's been said is we look to the chicago police department, chicago fire department, those agencies to respond whenever there's an issue or matter at hand. when it comes to oust customers and actual -- to our customers and actual employees, we'll -- i guess you mentioned a variety of different job descriptions about the authority -- receive the basic training on how it is to remain vigilant. we put notices out to our employees systemwide, all 10,000 of them, to say that we need to remain alert in

assisting our customers. our campaign is to notify everyone throughout the system but we do individualized training depending on the individuals and the job description. >> to the point where if a ticket agent sees a suspicious-looking package, is he trained in the procedures? >> yes. we have our control center, our operation center. everything goes and flows through that information -- that organization there. through that booth there we have members of the chicago police department and fire department. the communication gets spread out through that hub. they are notified to immediately contact the control center and we work with the experts to send in whatever teams to be sent in to address the issue, be it a bag that's identified. we have oftentimes things that occur. or individuals that are basically sometimes tourists who come in an love to take

tons of pictures of our systems. we are not big fans of individuals taking pictures of our system. so -- they're trained to identify the tourists from the nontourists. >> mr. hartwig. >> recognizing information from t.s.a. specifically, in 2007 we took advantage of a funding force from t.s.a. that trained our front line employees, our system service workers, those people that interact with our patrons on a daily basis. the police department recognized if we want true information, the best people to receive it is the people that work in it every day. operations from a training sense and operations on a police sense dynamically oppose each other. the relationship that we now have with our operations department is to rely upon those employees. the distinction between a suspicious package and a mcdonald's bag or newspapers, this is' a big difference. and our agents know, have learned what that is.

it's an ongoing yearly certification program when they go to the police department to get updates. again, a source that was provided by t.s.a. >> thank you all. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. walsh. i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts for five minutes, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chair. first, i'd like to acknowledge the willingness of mr. pistole to help in the airport security issues surrounding the perimeter and tarmac issues. i'd like to publicly acknowledge that. my question is more general. i think it would be directed at mr. pistole and that is, there's been discussion this morning about the increased threat related to the events of the last few days and the killing of osama bin laden. but it was just a few weeks ago that the secretary of homeland security told us that the a no time since 9/11, this is prior to the more immediate event, at

no time since 9/11 has this country been in greater danger. and i wanted to ask you if that includes, as well, the increased threat? does that also include threats to mass transit, particularly my concern is in light of what's going on in the rest of the world with increased target being bus, rail and other factors, ports, so i wanted you to just address from your perspective in mass transit, is that consistent as well or is it greater even in terms of the secretary's remarks of the greater threats we're facing right now? >> i thank you, congressman keating. i think we are in one of those periods where there are so many unknowns, so many variables that we are all trying to ensure we are vigilant as to those things that have not come up on the intelligence community or law enforcement community's radar. whether it's a lone wolf, as

was mentioned earlier, somebody who may be inspired by what's happened this past week to take action on their own without putting detail. there are no specific threats to mass or rail transit right now in the u.s. we are very mindful about what has happened around the world, particularly, since the madrid bombing back in 2004. and so that is -- we see those vulnerabilities. we see what's happened in moscow in the subway there. of course the other places already mentioned. i think it's a relative term or assessment as to, are we more vulnerable now or less? the bottom line is we are concerned today, just as we were yesterday and we will be tomorrow that terrorists are trying to hurt us, trying to kill us in any means, modes that they can and recognizing the transportation is one of those key vulnerabilities that

we know both al qaeda, core al qaeda or al qaeda peninsula, as we've seen with the cargo plot and underwear plot coming out of aqap. we know those are the key modes they are trying to attack, and as mr. fugate mentioned, the terrorist impact. but our economy. we saw in a magazine, $4,200 it cost and yet the billions that could impact the global supply things. so those are things we are focused on. >> quickly, this relates to funding as well. we've been told that there's greater concern about domestic-based threats. it would seem to me mass transit targets would be easier, for lack of a better word, for domestic-based threats. with that, a greater threat, and that's been consistently

told to us there's a concern for domestic-based threats. is it a feeling of yours that you are a higher level target as a result of domestic-based threats than perhaps other types of threats? >> well, yeah, absolutely, congressman. it complicates it. we are not just looking from those coming overseas. it may be more or easier to identify, hopefully, but with over 300 million people here, based on my experience in the f.b.i. and all the investigations that we had on people who are homegrown or facilitators, enablers, whatever, providing materials, and, of course, timothy mcveigh in oklahoma city and the clinic bombings in the south, the unibomber, we have people born and raised here that have caused us harm and killed hundreds of people. so that is equally of concern. >> i yeb, mr. chairman. >> -- i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman.

>> i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson. >> thank you. mr. fugate, last september the mptor general released a report on the use of recovery funds by fema for tsgp. i was delayed because i was in a transportation meeting talking about recovery dollars. the report provided two charts. one with the disbursements and the other outlaying the number of jobs that was directly correlating with the fund allocations. some of the mass transit agencies that received r.o. funds did not reflect any job creation numbers while others have received less were able to create jobs. can you please explain how fema collects metrics through which can effectively mitigate threats and stimulate the economy by creating jobs? >> thank you for the question. this goes back to even further originally findings from the

government accountability office and from the inspector general, we did not have strong o.p.m. metrics tied to -- performance metrics tied to it. we are implementing that for 2011. so we are still having to go back on recovery funds and trying to get the information and show those connections and look at what was created. i think you have pointed out it was not equal, as we saw others -- some agencies did create a lot of jobs. others went to project and capital improvements that maybe we're not showing those jobs so we will collect that information for you. we are trying to build that into the 2011 grant cycle so we're able to show the accountability. >> thank you. and mr. pistole, on january 22, 2006, you spoke toe headquarters and said we want to focus attention to transit, rail and light. what actions have you taken since that speech to focus

resources within t.s.a. for programs to support mass transit security? i know you've been talking about it today, but specifically in reference to your speech, what did you do differently? >> you said the speech was in 2009? >> yes, january 26, 2009. >> so i started july 1, 2010. so it may be in different context so i'm not sure what that statement was. with that being said, what i've been focusing on since i became administer last july is ensuring that we can leverage strategic partnerships given the funding that we have based on tsgp and other opportunities for training, for k-9, whether it's through -- there's a number of different programs i could go through. different intelligence sharing mediums and mechanisms that we've used. but the key is its partnership between industry, state and local, law enforcement and administrator fugate and fema,

the limited funds we have in the most informed fashion that again tries to mitigate risk. >> and it was january 26, 2010. >> ok. i was still -- >> we'd be happy to -- administrator fugate, mr. pistole, my final question. the transit community administration has guidance for 2011 which may have impact on transit authority and partnerships that's been developed since the program's inception. i've been informed that these changes are needed in order to get quantitative results of the tsgp by focusing on a majority of the money on 62 distinct aspects, meaning tunnels, etc. this could limit tsgp's flexibility. i have a two-part question which essentially is, can you

develop the list of the 52 assets? number two, do you see these changes -- how would i phrase it? do you think that it fails to recognize the true nature of the risks associated with the transit systems and fail to acknowledge that transit is a system of systems? and for you, mr. pistole, i'd like to know, were you involved with mr. fugate as these changes were proposed? >> thank you, congresswoman. yes, multi-part question. let me address the part about the -- the 52 and looking at those critical infrastructures we assess. we, intelligent, law enforcement community would assess would be most vulnerable. so getting back to the issue of how we invest our federal dollars with state and local dollars to buy down that risk and if there is a critical infrastructure, bridge, tunnel, underwater tunnel, how can we best leverage our assets at the federal level with state and local in terms of what they're

doing, whether it's through -- additional k-9 or patrol officers, things like that, so those are all part of that. the m.o.u. that administrator fugate mentioned earlier is a could you step in moving us to the next level as we make informed judgments about where we can invest the level that congress provides to us. >> and are you working with him directly on that? >> yes. >> yes, congresswoman. the work relationship t.s.a. has, they identify, prioritize what the threat is based upon the interaction that the administrator talked about. we're responsible for then ensuring that we have the grants administration but then building, as you point out, the metrics system on how we measure that performance. again, we understand as these decisions are being made, our ability to communicate, implement that as we go through the grant cycle is key to that success. it means working with t.s.a. on what that threat is, how to

prioritize that so we can make sure that grant conforms to that threat. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. i want to thank all the witnesses for your service. mr. rodriguez, thank you for your service in chicago. members of the committee may have additional questions for you. we'll ask you to respond to them in writing. we'll keep the record open for 10 days. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we got a chance to show you part of that hearing with peter king on transit security. you can see all of it later on the video library at c-span.org. the house is in recess. they will come back in in about 20 minutes. legislative business today. continuing debate on the repealing parts of the health care law, including a measure

to block taxpayer funding of abortion. we will have the house live when they gavel back in today at noon eastern here on c-span. this morning on "washington journal," we talked to california congressman democrat brad sherman about the impact, the effect of the death of osama bin laden, how it will affect u.s. strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. and we'll show you part of that conversation till the house comes back in. host: congressman brad sherman, a democrat from california, represents the 27th district. he is here to talk about strategy in afghanistan, pakistan. let us begin with the briefing that you and others received in the capitol yesterday from leon panetta. what did you learn? guest: not much more than one is in the papers. i expressed concern that we had been repeatedly saying that pakistan did not know that we were going in. now, that could be true, but it

does not mean you have to say it. my concern is, why were we rubbing the noses of pakistani citizens in the notion that their sovereignty was violated and that their military could not do anything about it? i do not think the answer was classified, but it was not remarkable. host: in generalities? guest: i do not think a lot of thought went into how to deal with the obvious question. i think, on the emotional side, there is some anger towards pakistan in the upper reaches of american government, which is justifiable, but not giving which to predict what would have been the alternative, which is ambiguity, a refusal of state.

host: given that many people inside the government, members of congress say that it defies logic that they would not know, do you share that sentiment? guest: i think there is a spelling mistake in these newspapers. pakistan is not a singular entity. it is a schizophrenic nuclear power. any time you have those two words next to each other, you have a problem. there were elements of pakistan that i am sure new, alamance that i am sure did not. why would -- knew, elements that i am sure did not. why would bin laden build his come down there? he must have been told that this would be a safe place to cocoon

next to the military. host: what should that mean for our partnership with pakistan? continue?ford to g guest: this is one area where the budgetary situation should not be guiding. you have a nuclear power that is schizophrenic, alamance -- elements in it, while not al qaeda, could be al qaeda- sympathetic. host: the figure ranges from $18 billion over the years that we have given to pakistan. what have we gotten for our money? guest: on the plus side, no use of pakistani nuclear weapons since they were developed more

than 20 years ago. we have had some exchange of information. young people have come up with this word in front of me, and i did not know what it meant, because i am not on facebook. my press secretary has one and i am not part of the generation. now i understand, we are talking about frenemies. host: what kind of ties should be placed on this money? you say that it should be carefully distributed? guest: alamance by element. -- element by elemebt. any economic aid needs to be published. any emergency aid, economic aid,

are so concerned about helping people -- that is what they should do -- that they will not put the flag on the back. if you are distributing food, they do not put an american flag on it. yes, that may meet the needs today of the treating the food, today, doing the economic development project. but instead, even if it poses typical to for the economic project, everything we do has to be well-publicized. host: you are on the foreign affairs terrorism committee. what did you hear about heightened threats coming overseas? guest: what concerns me now is the lone wolf. frankly, that is always a risk that we have had, but someone who may not have done something on their own six months from now

may try to do it within the next few days. so we have heightened alert. on balance, this makes us safer, even if we do not feel safe for this week. host: if you are concerned about the lone wolves, what does that mean for the patriot act extension? guest: we are always concerned about lone wolves, the franchise operations of the al qaeda itself. the heightened concern is a matter of weeks. so i do not think this is going to affect patriot act extension. host: what do you think the ramifications are of the death of osama bin laden? guest: it is going to help us roll up al qaeda, craig fishers in that organization.

-- create fissures in that organization. it is not really an organization so much as it is a franchise. it boosts our stock worldwide. we accomplished something militarily that no other country could have done, both in terms of the intelligence, and the raid itself. it makes us look like a superpower. host: the front page story in "the washington post." some say that this puts us in a better negotiation place with the taliban. guest: and it does put us in a better negotiation place because we are viewed as stronger. and some of the loyalties in the middle east are not to ideology, organization, but personal. the relationship between the afghan taliban and al qaeda are

now less strong. obviously, when we first went into afghanistan, the idea that we would see a coalition government between karzai and the taliban, we were aiming higher. now negotiations for elements of the taliban makes sense. host: first phone call for brad sherman from north carolina. go ahead. we are listening. you have to turn the television down. caller: as i understand it, we were paying pakistan $12 billion a year to help us fight. people get blowed up every day. you would think they would want to protect their own country.

why should we have to pay them to help us fight this? guest: the amount of aid is closer to $4.3 billion. less than half of that is economic aid, the other is security aid. if pakistan was doing the right things, the fact that they were doing them for themselves, as well as us, which fully justified the aid, motivated its own desire. the current president is the widower of benazir bhutto, killed by terrorists. so you are right, they should be doing all of the anti-terrorism work for their own reasons, but helping them with this money makes sense. there are elements in the government that are very cooperative. there are elements that want to build a moderate anti-terrorist pakistan.

those elements deserve our aid. but you cannot just throw money at the pakistani government and hope it gets to the right places. host: manhattan. evelyn is a democrat. caller: my question is about the congressman's opinion. good morning. a couple of years ago, i read a wonderful article in a foreign policy magazine predicting that pakistan is a terrorist state. they have nuclear weapons. do we consider them a threat? i do not know the specific amount in aid, but what we are giving them is not working to

our advantage. we had to do a covert operation -- host: it is something that we have been talking about, so what is your question for the congressman? caller: should we continue our aid for pakistan? guest: i would not call pakistan a terrorist state. there are a wide range of opinion within the governing circle. some of which would border on pro-terrorist. as i have said before, aid that goes to the right people in pakistan, or that motivates the right people to do the right thing, with a specific deliverable. right now, the onus is on the pakistani government to let us talk to bin laden's in august wife, who was involved in the incident, and pakistani custody.

here is a woman who may have spent many years with bin laden and could be a good source of information, but the pakistani government is denying us access. there are specific things be one from pakistan, and we can judge each element of the government separately, based on the behavior of that element. host: do you expect to get a readout from officials and what they find from the computers, the other data sources that they were able to bring with them after the raid? guest: i would be surprised if those details were shared with many members of congress. anything close to operational is may be shared with four members of the house, senate. they say if you want to tell a secret, do not tell anybody. eight is plenty. i am engaged in thinking about what our policy response should

be. so knowing how many zips bin laden had on his computer, i will leave that to others. host: next phone call. stephen. caller: good morning, representative sherman, and lady. classification is the priority here. it will give ambassador crocker, who i think is one of the finest diplomats said this country has produced, more leverage. we have a john glenn moment, and neil armstrong moment, and we are going to hide these heroes? guest: we certainly need to hide the heroes involved in this raid. what you do not want is to make the brother, cousin, child of one of those courageous seals a target for any kind of

assassination or terrorist act. everything possible should be done to conceal their identities. to some extent, every american is a little bit of a terrorist target, but we should not make anyone more of a target just because they are related to one of these men. we do have to -- i think we have made an awful lot available. the next issue is whether to publish the picture of bin laden. i do not think there is much of a downside, not much of an upside. i have not seen the picture. i am sure it is gruesome. there have been several photoshop pictures with a bullet wound. frankly, almost anyone with a computer can produce these

images. i would like to see it first. i think that would be something that we would declassify, but there are a lot of things about this raid. it shows our techniques. what kind of explosives were used? what kind of communications system was used? those are things that our enemy does not deserve to know. host: big rapids, michigan. you are next. caller: i would like to know why you are not telling the american people that bin laden was in our own cia during the afghanistan engagement, and that is likely how we got his dna. host: what evidence do you have of that? caller: well, it is public knowledge, first of all host: but where did you hear that? caller: on a world link tv.

host: why do you think that is reliable? caller: i think it is more reliable than the general news we are watching. host: skeptical thought about the news. guest: we were on the same side but people have exaggerated how closely we were. he has over 50 siblings, and many of those siblings resided in the united states up until 9/11. i believe one came back for medical treatment even after 9/11. whether the samples were drawn in saudi arabia or the united states, testing of siblings -- and a full sibling has a similar genetic closeness as a father to a child, mother to a

child. so where genetic material is 50% connected, as it is with full siblings and children, you can do a very accurate test. i have not heard anything classified on this, but from press reports, i think we had dna from several of his siblings, half siblings. as to cooperation with bin laden, he was fighting on the same side, he was done on the cia payroll. did not need to be coming from one of the richest saudi arabian family at the time. the effort of pushing russia out of afghanistan was popular in saudi arabia, presumably with the bin laden family, popular with other donors, popular with the saudi royal family.

i do not think he needed american dollars. there were others fighting on the same side all try to push russia out of afghanistan that were being aided by the united states. it is easy to go back now and say, in the 1980's we should not have been worried about the soviet union, we should have been worried about bin laden. that would have taken more foresight. in fact, the soviet union, and its capacity to destroy the world, calamity with the united states, was far more dangerous. we dealt with that, in part, in afghanistan. i would rather have our problems today than the security problems we faced in the 1980's. host: let me turn to afghanistan and pakistan.

turning to a piece this morning. >> all of that available online at c-span.org. we are leaving that. the house coming in for legislative work. finish up work on a bill that repeals funding for the construction of school-based health centers. also a bill that will block federal funding of abortions. live court and jury of the house now on c-span -- live coverage of the house now on crope. -- c-span. --

that all people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. e, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. during this session of the 112th congress, and this the people's house, may the hearts of these duel elected representatives be blessed with the integrity of purpose and steadfast commitment to seek and serve the people of the united states of america for the betterment of this country and the world. we ask this all in the name of the one god, the god of all nations, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval of there. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led today by the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: join with me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, the average for a gallon of gas in ohio is over $4 a gallon. and in eastern and southeastern ohio this is particularly hard on families in rural areas. farmers, ranchers, seniors, working families, these high gas prices are having a negative impact on everyone. the higher gas prices go, the more of an impact it has on our economy and our chances for real economic recovery. small business owners are watching money they could otherwise invest in their businesses go to paying for fuel. and working families are anxiously redoing their budgets

to account for higher fuel costs and looking for ways to cut back. we're blessed with an abundance of natural resources in ohio. we're one of the highest coal producing areas and with the marcellus shale right next door in west virginia, we're poised to make a contribution to making america self-sufficient. we need an energy strategy that will help us be energy self-sufficient so we stop relying on other countries to meet our needs. now is the time to level a permatorium. let's put ourselves in position to be self-sufficient instead of relying on foreign sources of oil. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in opposition to h.r. 3 and remind my colleagues of

two key dates, january 11, 2011, the day h.r. 3 was introduced. the authors of this bill issued a bill to redefine rape an incest. mr. quigley: 173 members signed their names to a bill that would have redefined rape to exclude women who are unkshes, mental disabled or forced into sex by threat. they would like us to forget january 7, 1973, on that day, the supreme court decided the supreme court had the right to make a decision about their own bodies and their own lives. we will not forget that date and we won't forget the members of the body who won't to -- want to redefine rape and insist. we will not forget, we will not go back and we must not pass

h.r. 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, osama bin laden has met his maker and we appreciate the navy seals in arranging the meeting. but pakistan gives us some turn. -- some concern. it seems pakistan may be playing both sides and they have a lot of explaining to do. for all these years we felt osama bin laden was on the run, living in caves. instead, he's been living in a million-dollar compound just miles away from the pakistani base. but the pakistanis say they don't know where he is. we need a full understanding of when pakistan knew bin laden's whereabouts and when they knew it before we give them more money. we have appropriated $3 million

in aid to to pakistan this year and unless they can prove they were not providing sanctuary for america's number one enemy, they should not receive any aid. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i rise in strong opposition to the majority's attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose a right that the fundamental to a woman's freedom. h.r. 3 would raise taxes on any americans whose employer-sponsored health care plan provides coverage for abortion. it eliminates americans' rights to use their own funds for legal abortions unless they can prove to the i.r.s. they were victims of rape or insist. ms. tsongas: it allows a hospital to refuse to perform an abortion even if a woman would die without it. it allows a doctor to refuse to

perform an abortion even if the pregnancy threatens a woman's health, an it makes change it is to how we define rape. my colleagues say they are for no new taxes and preserving life but this legislation belies that claim. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> the news that osama bin laden had been killed by u.s. forces on sunday brought reassurance to many around the world that justice had finally been served. a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people of all races and religions had been located and eliminated. mr. pitts: however not everyone saw it the same way. the leader of hamas in gaza called bin laden a sheikh and said, quote, we condemn the assassination and killing of an arab holy warrior, ep quote this comes the same week

palestinian political parties reconciled and formed a unity government. how can the united states provide aid to a unity government if one of its most important leaders praises a mass murderer. how can they have a government composed of a party actively seeking its destruction. there cannot be true peace as long as hamas holds up osama bin laden and others as true heroes. they must realize terrorism will never bring them true peace an true independence. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to honor and recognize the rich history of the jewish-american history in the united states as we mark jewish-american heritage month. it is fitting that the words of the jewish american emma lazarus are on the statue of

liberty, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. jewish imfrants arrived here as prospered, they became involved in their neighborhoods and made lasting contributions to this country. mr. cicilline: they represent some of the foremost leaders in math, science, arts and culture. this is found in jewish americans who work tirelessly to seek a better life for future generations. in celebrating many milestones of jewish americans this month, we honor the lives of jewish americans throughout our nation. that's why this month we take time to remember the unique jewish american identity steeped in history and faith and their tremendously important cringses to our nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to bring attention to the plentiful natural gas reserves we have in the united states. many of my colleagues may not be aware of two studies which highlighted the abundance of this clean-burping domestic fuel source that holds so much promise. the first thing i'd like to draw attention to is the energy outlook for 2011, which analyzes con summingts, production, and market sfly and demand and the direction those trends may take in the future. mr. reed: it anticipates strong growth in the natural gas development because of the development of shale gas resources. it notes that growth in natural gas would not be permissible but for the combination of horizontal drilling and fracturing technologies which have made shale gas economical to produce. it finds that it has led to an annual average growth rate of 89% from 2006 to 2010. the second study i'd like to

mention is the american gas association's potential gas committee 2010 biennial report. at this point, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3 which the house will vote on later today. after voting last month to end medicare as we know it for seniors, today the majority is attacking the women's reproductive freedom. for the last three months we have watch as the majority party has consistently attacked the right of women to receive comprehensive health care and today is no different. h.r. 3 has outrageous provisions that would end comprehensive private health insurance coverage and reduce women's access to abortion care in many ways. ms. bass: h.r. 3 manipulates the tax code to restrict access

to comprehensive care. the bill raises taxes on vims and small businesses with insurance plans that cover abortion, forcing them to drop their health insurance plans. h.r. 3 is an unprecedented attempt to deny access to full reproductive care. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this radical anti-choice bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 3. this deceptively titled legislation is nothing more than an assault on women's access to health care. ms. richardson: if enacted this legislation would severely curtail women's access to reproductive health care services. what would it do? it would impose tax penalties on women. it would narrow the already restrictive areas that the hyde

amendment has dealt with. and further, what i find most alarming, it would attack the coverage for federal employees, including women, who serve in the military. where is all of our applause now? the hyde amendment clearly states that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care and nazz narrowly provided exceptions that state for rape, incest an health complications that arise from pregnancy which would put a mother's life in danger. are we against that? i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, resoundingly. no on h.r. 3. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i request permission to address the house, revise and extend and provide extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in honor of the long, product i life of harold s h is

nitzer who grew one of the largest privately own real estate companies in the western united states. mr. blumenauer: he was a philanthropist for the arts in oregon. i personally experienced his kindtons a young man interested in public service. he continued to be generous with his opinions and jade vice, a story i know was repeated many times. his many contributions to our community will be enjoyed for yen rations to come. we honor his life even as we mourn his passing and extend our condolences to his wife of 62 years, arlene, his son jordan, and countless friends. >> the people in michigan are clear, our number one priority is jobs, and yet the republican majority here in washington is once again ignoring the economy and pushing a bill that raise taxes and attacks women's health care choices. current law already prohibits

federal funds from covering abortion services and it has for 30 years. now republicans want to stop private insurers from offering coverage and they want to ban women from purchasing a comprehensive health care plan with their own money. h.r. 3 is not about taxpayer funding, and it's certainly not about reducing the deficit. it is an extreme plan that will raise taxes on any person or business that buys insurance that includes abortion coverage. that's right, if a small business wants to treat women equally and guarantee them access to legal health care services paid for with their own money, that business will pay higher taxes. do not be fooled about talk about taxpayer funding, this bill is harmful to women's health. it undermines the right to choose. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill later today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: madam speaker, i rise this morning with a

question which is, what are we doing? what are we doing here? like all 434 of my colleagues, i just spent two weeks at home listening to my constituents and i heard one message. do everything you can, don't let a second go by, work to restore jobs in this country, improve the economy. and i get down here on monday and what do we do this week? we voted in this chamber to eliminate funding for school based health centers. funding for kids who don't have any other way to see a doctor. today thanks to the republican majority we will vote to try to scale back the right of women to have access to reproductive health care. and later on this week, we are going to take up measures that will keep the gravy train flowing to the oil companies. the $4 billion in our taxpayer money that goes to companies like exxonmobil which last week reported $10 billion in profits. i'm glad exxonmobil is making money, but you know what? they don't need ours.

so what are we doing? when is the republican majority going to get serious about the one thing that my constituents cared about? jobs. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3. republicans said that they are for smaller government. but that ends when it comes to women. in order to curtail women's reproductive rights, it isn't enough to prevent the public dollars from helping poor women end a dangerous or unplanned pregnancy, that's already the law. no public money for abortions. but now they are going to raise taxes on small businesses telling them that if they offer a health plan for men or women, that has the gall to cover abortions -- by the way that's about 90% of plans that cover all legal procedures, then they can no longer get a tax break

for offering such a plan. raising taxes on businesses that offer comprehensive health plans. that's the bill that's up today. now even private money of individuals and businesses, men and women, will now face a new tax. so so much for small government and lower taxes that the republicans talk about. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? the gentlelady is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. ms. eshoo: first of all, to imply that taxpayers fund abortions today is a lie. nope. not one penny can be spent on abortions because of the hyde amendment which passed on september 30, 1976.

what this bill does is to play reproductive roulette with the tax code. under h.r. 3, if someone buys private insurance that includes coverage for abortions, they will be taxed. if someone buys private insurance, using your own money, obviously, that doesn't include coverage for abortions, then they can deduct the cost of a health plan from their taxes. this would turn our tax collection agency into a health care policing agency. i support a woman's right to opt for or against abortion. the decision is private. it's a matter of faith. it's a matter of conscience and our constitutional recognizes this. make no mistake, this is an attack on women's health and it's a giant step back for the equality we have worked so hard to achieve. this is wrong -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. eshoo: the house should

oppose it. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i also rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3. mr. holt: our first priorities here in the house of representatives must be helping foster job creation and supporting middle class families. yet more than four months into this congress we have not considered one bill, not one bill, that would achieve these goals. instead, we have before us today h.r. 3, one of the centerpieces of the republican agenda. and it would limit the health care choices of women. now, even if all it did is what the name implies, to prohibit federal subsidies for abortion, it would be redundant, unnecessary, and misguided. but it's much worse than that. in truth it's an unprecedented and extreme attempt to limit health insurance coverage for american women to raise taxes on small businesses, to infringe on legally protected rights of american service women, to make this legal,

constitutional, and protected medical procedure inaccessible to women. i oppose h.r. 3 and urge my colleagues to vote no and i urge the majority to get to work helping americans to get to work. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: thank you, madam speaker. it appears that there are some in this body who believe that if you state a falsehood often enough, people will believe that it's the truth. that's what the bill before us is all about. an attempt to legislate something that isn't. the proponents of h.r. 3 want you to believe that abortion is rampant in america and we spend zillions of federal dollars a year and this bill will stop the use of those federal funds. this is a crockett of baloney. everyone in this house knows

that federal funds are not spent on abortions. it's been the law of this land for the last 35 years. h.r. 3 will have no effect, zero, ngata, on the use of federal funds on abortion services in america because of the law under which we are already operating. but what h.r. 3 will do is drastically codify an untruth. it will reach into the pockets of women and prevent them from using their own money, their own private money on purchasing health care insurance which covers abortion services. this is a mass intrusion into the privacy lives of people and businesses. it should be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: later today the house will continue its extreme assault on women's health. h.r. 3 would prevent small businesses and families from receiving tax credits for private insurance coverage that includes safe and legal health

procedures. allow hospitals to deny lifesaving care to women. if audited potentially require victims to prove to the i.r.s. agents they were raped. most troubling is the report accompanying the bill, radical republicans want to limit the exception for rape victims who can access full legal health services to only forcible rape victims. this bill to limit women's health services is a shameful distraction from the public's top ryor, creating jobs. -- top priority. creating jobs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: with gas prices in my district in louisville, kentucky, hitting 4d as they are all over the country, exxonmobil just reported an earnings of $10.7 billion for the quarter, almost 70% higher than last week. b.p., conoco, shell, and chevron also reported huge increases in profits.

we are still giving them taxpayer financed subsidies. last week the chairman of the budget committee said he thinks we ought to do away with these subsidies, yet he and the rest of the republican majority are pushing a budget that not only sustains those give aways to oil companies, but also would lower taxes for billionaires, all at the expense of our seniors, our students, and struggling families who are paying that $4 a gallon all over the country. we are to do away with these subsidies and the democrats have introduced the big oil welfare repeal act to do just that. if we are serious about deficit reduction and equity in this country and fairness, we will pass the big oil welfare repeal act and we will help to begin to return this country to having an economy that works for everybody and not just exxonmobil. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hinchey: i rise in

opposition to h.r. 3 which has nothing to do with taxpayer funding of abortion. right or wrong federal funding for abortion hasn't been allowed for more than three decades. h.r. 3 has everything to do with infringing on the actually protected right to an abortion that has been the law of the land for 38 years. for years we have been listening to republicans call for smaller government, less regulation, fewer taxes. the but this bill represents the opposite of these values. it's more regulation on business, more regulation on health care decisions that should be left up to women and their doctors. it's more taxes on small business. more taxes on women. and it's more control by anti-choice extremists in washington. finally, this bill isn't about job creation, either. instead it's about bringing up divisive legislation that has no hope of becoming law in order to divide and distract the american people. it's been four months and still the new majority here hasn't brought a serious bill about job creation to this floor for a vote. it's time to get back to the

work of putting americans back to work. let's do that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 237 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 33, house resolution 237, resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 3, to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute prohibited -- printed in the

report of the committee on rules dakpping this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. >> for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. >> during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> house resolution 237 provides for a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 3. the rule provides for ample debate on this bill and gives members of both the minority and majority the opportunity to participate in the debate. madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. for the past 30 years we have used a patchwork system of clauses and amendments to protect american tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions. mr. new gent: every year congress has to a -- mr. nugent: every year congress has to attach amendments to appropriation bills specifically stating funds spent in that legislation may not be used for elective

abortions. every year these amendments pass. these amendments pass, madam speaker, because members of congress know and recognize the fact that the vast majority of americans do not want their hard earned money to be spent for abortions of innocent unborn lives. in 2010 the zogby o'leary poll found that 77% of all americans believe that federal funds should never be used to pay for abortions or should only be used to save the life of a mother. . 77%, madam speaker. this number proves that even people who support a woman's right to choose still believe that tax dollars should not pay for that choice. clearly, a time has come to move beyond this piecemeal approach -- approach to achange the way the nation addresses

this issue. among the riders made permanent to h.r. 3 are, the hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual labor, health, and human services appropriation act. the holmes amendment which prohibits fuppeding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas. the smith federal employee health benefit plan amendment which prohibits funding for elected abortion coverage for federal employees. the dornan amendment which prohibits the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the district of columbia. the conscience clause which ensuring that -- ensures that resip yens of federal funding do not discriminate against doctors, nurses, or hospitals because they do not pay for,

cover, or refer for abortions. madam speaker a woman's right to choose can be a divisive issue that plits americans down the issue. however, we aren't talking about a 50-50 issue. we're talking 777%. clearly a majority. just -- 77%. clearly a majority. just as millions of americans believe tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for a abortions, so do the members of congress from both parties. there are 227 bipartisan co-sponsors for h.r. 3. i'm proud to be one of the co-sponsors. it will ensure that taxpayers won't be forced to fund what many consider the destruction of human life through abortion on demand. the no taxpayer funding abortion act will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on funding abortion or insurance coverage that includes abortion.

this comprehensive approach will reduce the need for numerous separate abortion funding riders. it eliminates the abortion-related amendments to appropriation bills, bills that the rules of the house remine us aren't even spowed to legislate through amendments. it ensures that all federal programs are subject to this important safeguard. once again, ma'am, i rise in support of this rule an underlying legislation. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you, madam speaker. we have had many misnamed bills to make some kind of point. ms. slaughter: but this one does not have anything to do with restricting federal money for use in abortions. that has not been done for 30

years this bill actually says, make sure that all insurance companies never cover them again regardless of circumstances. with no other medical procedure would we be standing here talking about what's best for american citizens. in all my years in congress i have never had to debate a bill about how and when a patient can receive an appendectomy or how a patient can receive corrective surgery, nor is it legal to have a vasectomy, yet here we are today debating a bill that will reach far beyond the status quo and place restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to access for reproductive health care. in the case of abortion, it has been decided with this bill they can dictate how and when a woman is allowed to receive reproductive health care. in part because women are instinctual nurtures, the decision about whether or not

to have an abortion is one of the most personal and important important decisions they'll ever make. in making this decision, a woman should be free to consult with whomever she pleases, whether it be her doctor, her spouses -- her spouse, her family, confidant or religious advisor. but a woman should never, never be forced to adhere to the extreme restrictions placed upon her by members of congress. i served in three legislatures an every one of them, there's always men in blue suits who knew very little about the life altering experience of pregnancy and birth who demanded this kind of action. i've often spoken in support of a woman's right to access an abortion and had many people including some of my constituents who disagree with that, and -- who disagree with me, and that's fine. but they have never tried to by law enforce upon me what they

believe. i was asked by a man who was strongly opposed to a woman's right to choose, what should be done about that. and my response to him was simple and personal and still applies today. i asked him that, if god forbid he ever finds himself in a difficult position of having to decide whether or not his wife needed to have an abortion, either because of the health of the fetus or the mother was in dangerous, or other personal or private matter, if he -- is he willing to say to people gathered in the hospital and doing discussion, no decision can be made until louise slaughter gets here, because congress will make that decision for him. the right to an abortion is already a procedure that's carefully regulated in the decision of roe v. wade. today's legislation would go far beyond the status quo and further restrict access in an attempt to make it practically

impossible to receive an abortion under these laws. today's bill changes the tax system. this is an important point, i want you to understand this, for private health care plans, that offer abortion service to small businesses and individuals as most of them do. if passed into law this bill would pressure private health insurance plans to stop offering that coverage altogether. and that, madam speaker, is the purpose of this bill. in addition, and most egregiously, today's legislation opens the door to the i.r.s. audit of rape and insist survivors to prove that they followed the law when paying for an abortion. do we do this with anything else i'm astonished to place this kind of burden on medical procedure. it's been designed specifically to chip away at the rights of women.

most egregiously, this bill has put a dangerous provision into the committee report that accompanies this bill. please listen up. you need to know what this says. and it's report language that's as important as the bill itself. that report language states the legislation is intended to prohibit the use of federal money to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape. that, ladies and gentlemen, is the rape of a child too young to give consent. now, think about that for a moment. this bill forebids any money being used to help that child. it's not bad enough that they have been raped or that they are victims of incest. now we're telling them they have to keep records so that they can prove to the i.r.s. that they followed the law.

that is what i think about when i made the statement earlier this spring about show me your papers. and that is precisely what this bill is asking to do. this bill becomes law, think about the statutory rape, think about your children, think about other people's children. if it becomes law, the committee report will become one of the documents relied upon by the courts when deciding the cases about abortion. with a committee report in hand a future justice would have the document they immediate to further restrict access to abortions for victims of rape and insist. -- and incest. if this sounds extreme, believe me, it is. we, like our nation's founders, know that each individual is entitled to his or her beliefs. but no matter how strongly we believe them, we should not be allowed to force them upon others as we wish. yet placing an ideology upon

others and restricting their choices when it comes to reproductive health is the spirit behind today's legislation and one of the many reasons why it should be stopped. as we all know, at the time of our nation's founding, the idea of equal rights and freedoms was far from realized. in fact, it was not even of much concern. african-americans were property. women could not vote or own anything and indeed, a pregnant woman who was widowed could find that her child had been willed away from her by her husband who had all the rights. native americans were pushed off their land and out of our society. with great struggle, certainly i know the struggle for women's rights because of what happened in my own district where that struggle began. over time, we've righted many of these wrongs and as a nation we've come to believe that many women of every color and creed are created equal. that we are all entitled to the

rights and individual freedoms at the core of our nation's ideals. today's proposed legislation up ends the principle of rights and freedoms by placing severe restrictions on the constitutionally established right to abortion. instead of establishing this, they should respect the rights of women and uphold their constitutionally protected rights. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on today's rule and the upside lying bill that may be the most efwredges that comes to the floor this year. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. >> i yield three minutes to my colleague, dr. gingrey of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i rise in strong

support of this bill and the underlying bill. the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. i would like to commend our colleague from new jersey, chris smith, for his leadership on this legislation and his steadfast pro life stance throughout his tenure in congress. as a practicing ob/gyn physician for nearly 30 years, i believe that all life is sacred. the issue of abortion is personal for me as it is for many across the country and members of this body. however, that is not why we are on the house floor today considering this legislation. instead, we are here to answer one simple question. should american tax dollars be used to fund abortions? when an elective choice can decide life and death, should the federal government be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for that choice? madam speaker, h.r. 3 is a bill that seems -- seeks to set right what the last congress got wrong to ensure that

abortions are not funded by taxpayer dollars. at its very base level, h r. 3 simply codifies the hyde amendment, which has been enacted in some form or another as an appropriation rider since fiscal year 1976. through this legislation today, we will make permanent the prohibition on federal funding for abortions, thereby eliminating the inherent vulnerability that riders like the hyde amendment face as part of the annual appropriation process. furthermore, h.r. 3 codifies the hyde-weldon conscience clause that's protected health care providers from discrimination by state and local government for simply refusing to provide, to pay for, or even refer for abortion. so additionally h.r. 3 will allow those health care providers who choose not to perform abortions legal recourse if they face overt discrimination as they often do.

madam speaker, h.r. 3 also prevents federal funds being used for tax credits that subsidize health insurance coverage, that includes elective abortions through the patient protection and affordable care act so-called obamacare. one of the many problems with this law, obamacare, is that there's no statutory language prohibiting premium assistance from being used for abortions despite many efforts of house and senate republicans during the last congress. h.r. 3 provides the assurance that our taxpayer dollars will not be used in any form of federal subsidies for abortion coverage. so madam speaker, as a father and an ob/gyn physician, who has delivered over 5,000 babies, i will be voting to ensure that the federal government does not use taxpayer dollars for any elective abortion. i ask all my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying bill h.r. 3.

with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in vehement opposition to this rule and dangerous legislation. the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. this bill belies its true intent, to go far beyond current law and comprelf -- comprehensively curtail women's health care. this bill isn't about taxpayer funding for abortion, it is a comprehensive attack on women's lives. we hear all the time, we hear that people want government out of their lives, out of their business. there is nothing, there is nothing more invasive than government getting in between families and their doctors when

making this difficult decision. so this bill won't save taxpayer dollars or create jobs, but it will undermine women's health. and it will hurt small businesses by penalizing them for offering their employees insurance plans that cover a full range of women's health care. this is a slap in the face of small businesses that are trying, that are trying to take care of their companies, their employees, and their own families. it is also a slap in the face to any family that has to make the difficult decision to seek abortion care. as a daughter and wife of physicians, i am shocked that we would so quickly dismiss the judgment of our country's medical personnel and families in making the best decision to preserve the health and lives of their loved ones. we are wasting time on divisive issues while denying the real

implications this will have on our families and economy. i urge my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my colleague, mr. fortenberry, from nebraska. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. mr. fortenberry: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for the time. madam speaker, americans deserve to know how the government spends their money and they are right to refuse the use of tax dollars for highly controversial activities, in this case abortion. let me first make my own position clear. i'm pro-life and i believe that women deserve better than abortion. but certainly we can all agree that the u.s. government should not take tax dollars from hardworking americans to fund abortion. i believe it's time we look at the reality of abortion, be honest, and see the choice for what it is.

it is interesting to note that the early feminist movement recognized that abortion is a fundamental injustice. abortion harms women. it takes the lives of children and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. abortion and the abortion industry so often profits from all of this pain. abortion is also so often the result of psychological or physical coercion or even emotional or physical abandonment. and this is a tragic social paradigm that has caused a deep wound in the soul of our country. no matter how difficult the circumstances, madam speaker, i believe we can and must do better as a society and at a minimum taxpayer dollars should not be involved. this issue has manifested itself again most intensely during the health care debate. unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. madam speaker, abortion is not health care. the house of representatives

recently voted to stop the use of taxpayer funds for abortions in the district of columbia. so for decades congress has proscribed federal funding for abortion in this piecemeal fashion through the hyde amendment and other similar provisions in annual appropriations. it is time to settle this once and for all. as the majority of americans wish. this bill will provide a comprehensive prohibition on the use of federal tax dollars to fund the socially divisive issue of abortion. it's time we stop. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me yield myself 30 seconds just to -- h.r. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. by refusing to provide any exceptions to women facing serious health conditions, cancer, heart, whatever that may be, you are forcing women to choose to risk their house or bankruptcy. i think that's morally unacceptable. h.r. 3, a woman facing cancer

who needs to terminate a pregnancy to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that legal and necessary procedure could cost. despite having both health insurance and tax deferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that. i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, a nurse, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong op -- opposition to this rule and underlying legislation. a mere two weeks ago the republican majority brought us to the brink of government shutdown over their disapproval of planned parenthood. instead of addressing our economic challenges with housing and creating jobs, we are here again today witnessing the republicans' obsession with reopening the culture wars. h.r. 3 represents the most egregious attack on reproductive rights in over 35 years. rights that are protected by

the supreme court decision. h.r. 3 ooses -- uses the tax code to effectively deny access to insurance that includes abortion care coverage no matter how it is paid for. what it doesn't do is trust our nation's women, trust our nation's families, their doctors, their clergy, and trust small businesses to make their own health care choices for their employees. this is unacceptable. make no mistake, despite the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle, the bill is not about funding. it's about using our laws and our tax code to infringe upon the rights of women. the protected rights of women and families across this nation. madam speaker, it is time that this congress place its trust in our nation's women, its families, and small businesses to make their own health care choices. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield five minutes to my colleague from new jersey, the author of h.r. 3, mr. smith.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: i thank you for his leadership. madam speaker, america has changed and today is more pro-life than ever. by ever increasing majorities, especially among our young people, the megatrend is to protect the child in the womb from the insidious violence of abortion and protect women from the trauma often lifelong emotional harm from procuring an abortion. this paradigm shift reflected in all the major polls is a direct result of pro-life education, pregnancy care centers, pro-life laws, including funding bans, informed consent. the molding of consciousness by the faith-based community and advances in ultrasound that have shattered the pernicious pro-abortion myth that the baby in the womb isn't a human person or alive or of value. even planned parenthood's abortion clinic director was

shocked into her new pro-life view by witnessing an ultrasound guided abortion of a 13-week-old baby who was dismembered and pulverized in real time right before her eyes at that texas clinic. but perhaps the greatest reason for the new shift in public opinion in favor of life is the growing number of extraordinarily brave, post abortive women who deeply regret their abortion and today are silent no more. one post-abortive woman told a group outside the u.s. supreme court, i heard her say it, as she lay on the operating table the abortionist laughed as he inserted a sharp knife into her womb and said, oh, it's trying to get away. partially sedated the woman immediately pleaded with the nurse and doctor to stop the abortion and to spare her child. they told her to shut up. today she is deeply wounded by that cruel assault, that legal assault on her baby.

another woman has had two abortions. today she's joined the grolling coalition of women who deeply regret their abortion out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, they challenge us to respect, protect, both mother and child. the women of silent no more give post-abortive women a safe place to grieve and road map to reconciliation. and to society at large and especially to congress, these brave women compel us to rethink and to reassess the abortion culture. reflecting on her famous uncle's speech, i have a speech, dr. king asked us how account dream survive if we murder the children? madam speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending public funding for abortions saves lives. even the pro-abortion institution in june of 2009 in

a report said, approximately 1/4 of women who have had -- would have had medicaid funded abortions if the hyde amendment didn't exist instead give birth when this funding is unavailable. i vividly remember the late congressman henry hyde being moved to tears when he learned that the hyde amendment had likely saved the lives of more than a million children who today are perhaps in school and getting ready for summer vacation, perhaps playing sports, or if they are in their 20's or 30's, building their own families. h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act, competitively ensures that all programs -- competitively -- comprehensively ensures that all programs do not subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. it ends the current i.r.s. policy allowing tax favored treatment for abortions under itemized deductions, h.s.a.'s,

m.s.a.'s and it ends the use of tax credits under obamacare to purchase insurance plans that include abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. today we seek to end taxpayer complicity in abortion violence. no taxpayer should be coerced to pay, subsidize, or facilitate the dismemberment, chemical poisoning, the starvation, remember that's how ru-46 works, it first starve ves the baby to death and the other chemical brings on the delivery of a dead baby, or the suctiononning to death of a child. regarding conscience rights, h.r. 3 protects pro-life health care entities from discrimination by state, local, and federal governments and empowers the courts with the authority to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of conscience. the need for this protection is great. according to the alliance of catholic health care which

represents california's catholic health systems and hospitals, quote, california's catholic hospitals operate in a public policy environment that regularly challenges the concept of protections by attempting to coerce them and other health care providers to perform and be complicit or pay for abortions. i urge members to support this legislation, it is backed by 228 co-sponsors. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i want to yield myself 15 seconds to put in the -- the restoration of federal medicaid coverage would result in a significant increase in the incidents of abortion nationwide. it's not supported by research. and extrapolating from guke macker's medicaid findings will serve that coverage in the private insurance market is strongly linked to abortion incidents is entirely illegitimate. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr.

welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentlelady. henry hyde was one of the outstanding members of the house of representatives in the history of the house of representatives. he believed intently in a pro-life position. and the remarks that colleagues who supported this legislation are ones that i think mr. hyde would approve of. but he was also a master legislator and he understood that other people have a different point of view than he has. and on the matter of abortion, something that is a matter of faith for many people, a matter of conscience for everyone, there are different points of view. the excellent job that mr. hyde did was to take taxpayer, direct taxpayer funding out of the equation. if there was going to be abortions, it was not going to be paid for by taxpayer dollars. this amendment takes it a radical step further. what it does, it says if there is any tax credit that is part

of a health care plan, then this legislation would prohibit a small business from offering that health care plan to its workers. just think about the enormous burden that is being placed on hundreds if not thousands of small businesses in ver month. -- vermont. i don't have enough time to yield. thank you. hundreds, millions of small businesses in this country. every one of those businesses where it offers a comprehensive health care plan to their employees that may include abortion services studly has to unravel those plans and deny that coverage to its workers. so what we have is an action by the sponsors of this legislation that would impose its will, far beyond what mr. hyde ever did or sought to do, on every small business in this country. by the way, there's another issue here, a precedent. if now we are starting to interfere with the use