that is totally irresponsible. host: some of your colleagues may have been burned by the political fallout. guest: obviously, the political fallout worries me. i feel that my republican party has the best ideas in regard to run in this country. i want us to keep the majority. i want us to get the white house in 2012, 2013. but i feel it is more important to worry about the next generation in thnext election. each member of congress needs to have that mind set firmly in place. and i reallyelieve, especially with this new group of 87 freshmen, republicans and house of representatives, that we do have that mindset. host: we talked about this during the first 45 minutes. one caller said that last night's vote showed that there is room for compromise. why not go back to the tax levels during the blow clinton era and also the spending cuts

that were put in place during the negotiations with republicans back then and the of the clinton administration? could you agree to some sort of deal with -- including tax revenues and spending cuts? vote wasst night's overwhelming. it would of taken a two-thirds majority to pass a clean increase in the debt ceiling. the two-thirds majority was against even then. some democrats are probably of the mindset that they do not want to be a clean increase. they want tied to increase in taxation. the republicans, most members if not all, do not want tax increases. we feel that we need to cut government spending, wasteful government spending. and we feel like le the path to prosperity budget said, we

want to simplify and lower tax rates, not only for individuals, but especially corporations. then you have a broader base of businesses and people paying their fair share and stimulating the economy. you have morjob growth, and pele, albeit at a lower tax level, paying taxes, and you end up wit more revenue and not less. host: let us go to phone calls. a democrat from alabama. caller: thank you for c-span. sir, you have the lowest taxes right now host: are you still there? we are listening. caller: you have the lowest tax rates that you have had in 37 yes right now. as far a raising the debt ceiling, you're not raising the debt ceiling for the spending. you're using it to pay for bills that you have already incurred.

to do all this cutting that you want to do with the lower and, you will hurt the economy more. that is what creates jobs, people having money to buy things. it is supply and demand. guest: danny, i think you may be right and you are right as fell level of taxation as it may have been in past years. you mentioned the clinton years, i think. but as everybody knows, we are in a global economy. while we have to compare is not our tax rate today 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, or immediately after world war ii when we were trying to pay for the war. we have to compare to our competitors across the globe to tax their citizens. the effective tax rate in this country at the corporate level is so much higher than in is in most eu countries. we have to lower that tax rate

to stay competitive globally. host: can you lower the tax rates and get rid of the loopholes? guest: i would agree to that. that is i would be willing to sit down with the democrats and for other loopholes. i think it is important that be fair, that we do not let one special interest group lobby so strongly that they get an advantage over the common man. it is importanthat we be fair an balanced and eliminate as many loopholes as we can. host: norman, oklahoma. caller: i get tired of hearing about medicare when we need to be talking about medicaid. and on the section 8 and social

security, what do kidset social security kids for asthma cause they have one arm longer than another? guest: karen, the medicare program is not working very well. it is about to break all 50 states. many of those states have democratic governors and democratic legislatures. in georgia, it is all republican. we are all suffering from the same problem. states cannot spend more money than they take in. so when that amount is cut or when the mandates for additional coverage such as was included in obamacare, the 15 million

additional people that will be forced on to the medicaid rolls in the various states are going to cost trillions of dollars in state budgets. republican plan, irresponsible digit -- a responsible budget. it gives states the chance to be the incubators of new ideas and entrepreneurship so that you get better health care to more people. host: we have a tweet about the cost of war. guest: it is a good tweet. i appreciate the question. we should pay for the wars. will we first went into iraq --

when we first went into b iraq, i felt strongly that some of the money we were spending should be eventually pay back to us when they increased their oil revenues. i still feel that way today. that may be part of the way i was reluctant in including and ignoring the president of the war powers resolution of 1974 to just simply go into libya, a third front costing us more and more money that we did not provide for except for borrowing more money. think the predent should abide by the war powers resolution, as president bush did in 2002 when he came to the congress and got overwhelming support in action in afghanistan and iraq.

host: mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding, unfortunately, this is a serious issue on which serious time has not been allotted because you put this on suspension. this is a serious issue. our country is in crisis from a fiscal standpoint. i wanted the gentleman to yld because i don't think he has any idea what the facts are. 89% increase in the debt under ronald reagan. he could have vetoed every one of those bills. under george bush, 115% increase in the debt. under bill clinton, less than 40%. ladies and gentlemen, this issue is an important issue that is being treated not as an adult. this is not the adult moment of which speaker boehner spok and you didn't mention that the budget you voted for, i presume, i'm not sure, increased the debt by $1.9 trillion between now a1.9

trillion between now and october 1 of this year. host: did you agree to raise the debt under the george w. bush administration? guest: i think of voted quarter times to increase the debt ceiling and six times not to increase the debteiling -- i think i voted four times to increase the debt ceiling. members can sort of hide their votes from the american people. steny hoyer is a respected member and someone that i respect. he was making the point that the increase in the debt ceiling that has occurred over the past six or eight years -- i voted against it more often than i voted r it. we need 11 up and down vote and

not hide it from the american people -- we need to have an up and down vote. host: why was it ok then? guest: it was not a clean vote. the house would deem if the senate -- it would be deemed as past. we did change the rules in the house to eliminate the gephardt ruling. anyone could go back to the same smoke and mirror games to raise the debt limit without having to raise their constituents. host: when you voted yes, why was it ok to vote yes? guest: we learn as we go. we know that the amount of debt that we have incurred,14.29

trillion, is wrecking the economy. 20% of the rabbit goes to pay the interest on the dead -- 20% of the revenue goes to pay the interest on the debt. caller: i have a quiz for you this morning. under george bus how many times did you raise the debt ceiling? guest: probably three times. host: a democratic call from detroit, michigan. caller: i'm a first-time caller and somewhat nervous. i am in calling in regards to the debt ceiling. i want to pay back some other callers. raising t debt ceiling is to

pay for the credit card the we have already incurred. it is like going to the mall and paying your bill and then you get the bill in the mail and you have to pay that bill. that is what the debt ceiling is. it needs to be raised. president obama did not take a dime from medicare advantage. it is like hmo. insurance companies were dispersing the medicar advantage. he took the waste from the insurance company and put it back into medicare to expand medicare for an additional 12 years. guest: i think you made my point. you said that president obama did not take a dime out of

medicare advantage. he did not take a dime.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote theys are 233.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234, the noes are 183, the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker: the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the gentleman from new york. is recognized for one hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. reed: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order.

the speaker: the gentleman may resume. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i did unanimous -- ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. reed: house resolution 287 provides for open rule of consideration of h.r. 2017. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 278, to provide the rule for h.r. 2017, the homeland security appropriations act for fiscal year 2012. mr. speaker, i'm proud to be managing this rule, the first truly open rule since july 31, 2007. an agriculture appropriations bill in the 110th congress. the 112th congress has made it clear that it's an open process and this rule exemplifies this initiative. for 119 members of the 112th congress, this is their first experience with an open rule, including six members of the rules committee. i'm proud to be part of this body and this conference that

has engaged in this transparency in government and this open process. throughout the entire 111th congress, only 810 amendments were considered. only six months into this, the 112th congress, 437 amendments have been considered. the leadership of this congress is directly listening to the american people and their call for an open and transparent process. in addition, this bill also follows the promise that we have made to the american people and that it does not include any earmarks, either in the underlying bill or in the conference report. this commitment is what americans desire and deserve and this will continue the process in this congress that we have committed ourselves to the american people to do. with that i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, not only does this rule before the house drastically shortchange homentland security priorities but this rule puts into force,

by deeming and passing the republican budget resolution. this rule, section 9 states very clearly that the republican budget resolution shall have force and affect, that's a traditional language of a deem and pass. yes this budget keeps -- deems pass the elimination of medicare in order to keep in place tax cuts for the highest earners and tax breaks for oil. although i do thank the majority for offering up the first open rule during my tenure in the house, i ask at what price? well, i think there would be broad bipartisan support for an open rule, i for one cannot support a rule that deems pass the elimination of medicare. americans resoundingly oppose the approach of dismantling medicare. they want us to put our economy on more secure fiscal footing and do it while strengthening our economy, creating jobs and mending, not ending, medicare.

i would like to quote former minority leader, john boehner, in reference to the approach of deem and pass that was considered by the then majority democrats with regard to the health care bill. then minority leader boehner said, this legislative trick has been around for a long time. but it's never been used for a bill so controversial and so massive in scope. end quote. i would ask my colleagues, what could be -- i will not yield. what could be more massive than an elimination of medicare contained in the rule rather than approach a simple vote on appropriations with regard to medicare, consulting medicare, bills with regard to medicare reform, this is the most sweeping rule that i've certainly ever faced in my time in the house of representatives and i think many of my colleagues agree. the passage of this rule alone would simply end medicare as we know it by construing in the deem and pass of the bill itself, the operative language, and let me explain how this works for some of our

colleagues. rules have broad authority and i know that our chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier, will on his own time be able to talk about this. the rules committee by the good graces of the house with our rules passing the house has the ability to accomplish whatever the house allows to us rule. so in this rule the house will deem under section 9 that the ryan budget, the budget that ends medicare, the republican budget, shall have forced and -- an effect until a conference report passes and that likely not occur unless the republicans alter their negotiating position vis-a-vis the senate and vis-a-vis the president. i strongly urge a no vote on eliminating medicare contained in section of this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: mr. speaker, at this point in time i'd like to yield to the chairman of the rules committee as much time as he may consume. the speaker: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, let me say at the outset that i'm particularly glad that you're in the chair because it was a speech that you delivered last september in which you said that we were going to in fact, if we won the majority, put into place an entire new structure that we have seen underneather political party over the proceeding years, that is the kind of openness, transparency and accountability that the american people have said overwhelmingly that they want. and so, mr. speaker, let me just say to you personally how much i appreciate the stellar leadership that you provided us on this very important issue. it is extraordinarily ironic that we last night saw the minority members of the rules committee actually vote no on the first open rule, the first open rule to be considered here in the house of representatives. and yet over the past several months they've been offering amendment after amendment in the rules committee calling for open

rules and so we report one out and they vote no. now, the other thing that i think is very important for us to recognize is that we have important challenges that are ahead of us as it relates to homeland security. my colleague managing this rule who by the way is one of the two floor managers, neither of whom has been able to see an open rule in the house of representatives up to this moment, my friend didn't even mention the very important underlying legislation that is befores. the distinguished chair of the committee on appropriations, my friend, mr. rogers, is here. he and mr. aderholt, mr. price and others on that subcommittee have worked very hard to deal with this priority item. mr. rogers served in the leadership on this subcommittee in the past and continues to have a great interest in it. and we should note that as we look at this new procedure that hasn't been considered since, as

my friend from corning said, july 31 of 2007, what we have is a structure whereby members will have the opportunity to stand up and offer amendments. and i listened to my friend from providence, our new colleague, mr. cicilline, who said that he opposes this bill because of the fact that it makes a cut that he didn't like. well, mr. speaker, as you know very well, under this rule mr. cicilline or any other member of this house will be able to stand up and in if he can find offsets -- and if they can find offsets, they can have a vote on the amendment addressing their particular priority. i also have to say that in the rules committee our good friend from north carolina, mr. price, was before us talking about his concerns and he asked for a waiver from the rules committee, nearly unprecedented, that would have gone beyond the standard definition of an open rule and

provided him extraordinary protection for a priority which he thinks needs to be addressed. well, mr. speaker, under this open amendment process mr. price will again be able to offer an amendment that he will be able to, if he can find an offset, have a vote on here in the house. and i want to talk about this issue that my friend from boulder addressed just a few moments ago and that we continue to hear over and over and over again. this so-called deem and pass. this is not, mr. speaker, this is not a deem and pass provision. i will remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we have already passed with a very rigorous debate here on the house floor the budget. we passed it already. now, so that we are able to move ahead with the important appropriations work with the 302 allocations that need to be done, it is essential that we

deem this budget because we have yet to have a conference report, we have yet to see our friends in the other body pass down a budget. and so it is essential that we deem, which has been done since virtually the beginning of time, to make sure that we can proceed with our very important work. tough decisions need to be made, you understand the leadership of speaker boehner we are poised to make those tough decisions. mr. speaker, it's important that we have a strong bipartisan vote for the first of what will be more and more open rules in the 112th congress. i urge my colleagues to support this, i look forward to sitting where speaker boehner is right now, to preside over the first appropriation bill that will be considered under an open amendment process and i look forward to a very rigorous debate. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond and of course while the underlying merits of the bill are critical,

eliminating medicare as we know it is even more important to the american people, hence the discussion under this rule as well. i shid point -- i should point out that while this is an open rule, i'm deeply appreciative for the chance to amend the provisions of the bill, if this rule passes it will be too late to save medicare under the bill. the very passage of this rule itself will deem pass the budget that contains the elimination of medicare and, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. levin: this is indeed an open rule. in the sense it's so open that if you vote for the rule you're voting to end medicare. republicans have done this once,

if you vote for this you're going to do it twice. and the gentleman who is handling this for the majority earlier talked about medicare and said, the republicans are trying to save it, you don't save something by ending it. purely and simply. and to come to this floor and say you're saving it when you're ending it, that kind of talk is a big lie. we heard this with social security some years ago, when the effort to privatize it was said to be an effort to save it. the public caught on and the public said no. the public has now said no to ending medicare but essentially you're tone deaf.

now you're doubling down on your plan to end it, a plan that would force seniors to pay twice as much for their health care, a plan that increases seniors' drug costs and a plan that puts insurance companies in charge of senior health care. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. levin: i'll finish. so, instead of a bipartisan effort to save it, by this rule you are essentially deeming the budget that you passed that ended medicare. . so don't come and say you're saviors when you are eliminating a prom. -- program. stand up and be honest and say you want to replace it with something else. that something else is not

medicare, it's turning over to the private insurance industry and saying to seniors who become eligible, who would be, instead you are going to double your costs. that's not forthright. if you vote again, if you vote yes on the rule, you are the second time voting to end medicare. i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair will remind members that their remarks should be addressed to the chair. the gentleman from new york. >> before i yield to the gentleman from new york, i would just like to make it clear that in our house-passed budget on page 58, line 8 and 9, it is clearly articulated there that current medicare benefits are preserved for those in and near retirement without changes. mr. reed: i'd also note for the record to clarify and make sure the record is very clear that

the budget that we are talking about is not going to be presented to the president and enacted into law. what we are talking about here is nothing about ending medicare as we know it. at this point in time i'd like to yield to my good friend, the chairman, mr. king from new york, for two minutes. the speaker: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. at the outset let me i am proud to vote for this rule because it is an open rule and i commend the speaker for doing this. it's a really important step forward i believe in the history of this house. let me say also, very reluctantly, in its current form i would have to vote against final passage of this bill. i say this because we are at a stage now where the homeland security threat level is the highest it's been since september 11. the killing of bin laden as made it worse. we know also from his own records that he's aiming at maritime, he's aiming at mass transit, and he's aiming at our major cities. yet we are cutting each of those programs by 50%. 50% cut.

i can speak to new york in that i can tell you we have 1,000 police officers, lower manhattan security initiative, radiation detection, the whole list of programs. every dollar in those programs can be accounted for. and i just cannot see why at a time when the threat level is highest as it's been since september 11 that we are reducing homeland security grants by 50%. the department was set up in the aftermath of september 11 to fight terror. those grants are being reduced. i noticed that isn't working, specify what's not working. don't take a meat axe, don't cut across the board. we are talking about human life. we are talking about a terrible threat to our cities, our ports, terrible threat to mass transit. for those, i understand the need to cut, i understand that need tremendously, having said that even from a strictly budgetary point of view, you have one dirty bomb go off in one subway in boston, new york, or chicago and with the tragic

loss of human life, apart there that, there will be economic devastation which will cost billions and billions of dollars of lost revenue and jobs and have a terrible impact. i have been through september 11. i know what it did to new york. i don't want any other city, area in the country to go through that again. yet we are reducing our defenses at a time when they are most needed. with that i would ask all the members to give chairman rogers the credit, give chairman aderholt the credit. unfortunately i have to vote against this. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. again while the majority is claiming this to be an open rule, the very passage of the rule itself deems passed the republican budget that ends medicare. that will not be amendable in any way, shape, or form in the general debate. all will be amendable are provisions related to the department of homeland security. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague. this is not an ordinary house rule we'll be voting on today. the resolution deems the provisions of the republican budget to have, quote, full force and effect. in other words, a vote on the rule today is essentially another vote on the republican budget plan that protects subsidies for the big oil companies while ending the medicare guarantee and slashing investments in education. those wrong-headed priorities were thoroughly rejected in the recent special election in new york, the american people clearly oppose a one-sided plan that would immediately reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and tells seniors that in 10 years they will pay $9,000 more for their current set of benefits, or take deep cuts in those benefits. ladies and gentlemen, the median income of seniors on medicare is less than $21,000 a

year. what kind of budget says we are going to require seniors with median incomes of $21,000 a year to pay $9,000 more in 10 years while cutting the rate for millionaires, the top marginal tax rate for millionaires, by 30%. what kind of budget would do it? well, the budget that was passed by the republicans a few months ago and the one they are cubbling -- doubling down on today. we have to have a balanced budget plan. we have to have a plan that addresses this from all aspects, not a plan that the former speaker of the house described as a radical plan that was driven by right-wing social engineering. it is very ironic that on the very day we will be swearing-in the next member of congress from new york's 26th district, that we will be voting again on a budget that the people of that district, like people around the country, rejected because the former speaker of

the house had it right. it was radical and right wing and not the right plan for america. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. mr. van hollen: i thank my colleague. the question we are facing here is, what is the best way forward? we all understand we have to have a budget deficit plan that's predictable. and addresses that issue. but why in the world would we adopt a one-sided approach that has those priorities that says we are going to slash medicare. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just like to remind my colleague from the other side of the aisle that the budget that they so referenced went through an open process. it was subject to debate. it was amended in this chamber and passed by this body. if they are so disinclined to approve that budget or stand with that budget, i would ask them to reach out to their colleagues in the opposing chamber in the senate who have not passed a budget for the last 762 days and take the matter up with them. at that point in time, mr.

speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, chairman of the budget committee. the speaker: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand why this might be confusing to my friends on the other side of the aisle. after all, they didn't bother to pass a budget last year. our friends on the other side of the rotunda in the senate didn't bother to pass a budget this year. we have a budget crisis. we've got a $1.5 trillion deficit. we've got a debt that is getting out of our control. and what do you do when you have a problem like that? you pass a budget. the reason we are doing what we are doing today is because our partners on the other side of the rotunda in the senate didn't pass a budget. house republicans did. we passed the budget. and we are acknowledging and living within that budget. if our friends on the other side of the aisle bothered to pass a budget, we wouldn't be in the situation where we are today. now, let's discuss about what

our budget does and what it does not do. number one, because we have a debt crisis we think we have a moral obligation to our constituents, our children, and grandchildren to put our budget on a path to balance and pay off our national debt. we also think we need to put our economy on a path to prosperity so we can get job creation. let's for a moment talk about medicare. medicare as we know it is already gone. our friends on the other side of the aisle when they passed the affordable care act, they stopped the medicare status quo. under the president's new health care law, that ends medicare as we know it. it does two things, it raids medicare and it rations medicare. it takes $500 billion from medicare to spend on the president's new health care law. doesn't take that money to

extend its solvency. js like people have complained for years we are raiding the social security trust fund and we should stop doing that, the president's health care law does that to medicare now. the second thing it does, starting next year the president will appoint 15 unelectable, unaccountable bureaucrats to put in charge of medicare. through price control and rationed medicare for current seniors. what's worse is the president and the senate still have yet to put out a plan to save medicare, to prevent it from going bankrupt. we stop the raid of medicare in our budget and make sure that half a trillion dollars stays with medicare to advance its solvency. i will not yield. number two, we repeal the rationing board so that we don't put bureaucrats in charge of determining what kind of health care benefits seniors do or do not get. and number three, we save medicare.

and the way in which we do this is this. we say that if you're on medicare, if you're 10 years away from retiring, 55 and above, government already made a promise to you. we want government to keep that promise. so under our budget we keep that promise. we stop the raid. we repeal the rationing board. and for those of us who are 54 and below, who have a bankruptcies tell, that we right now cannot count on, we reform it so that it works like the system, members of congress, and federal employees have. it's a system that looks like medicare advantage with a drug benefit works today. where seniors get a choice of plans offered to them by medicare, guaranteed coverage options, from which they can choose and medicare subsidizes that plan. it doesn't subsidize people as much if they are wealthy, and it subsidizes them more if they are low-income, if they are sick. this saves medicare. this puts medicare on a path to solvency, and more importantly,

by saving it for future generations, we can keep the promise to the current generation. we repeal the rationing board, we stop the raid, and we save the program. that's what our budget proposes to do. but with respect to this rule, we are talking about discretionary spending. we are talking about paying the bills this year for all those different government agencies. we simply think congress should function the way the founders envisioned it. when we actually passed budgets, we actually scrutinized spending, and we actually financed government's functions and its agencies. we are not ducking our responsibility. we are passing our budgets. and because we are deeming those numbers in this year's bill, it is simply because of the fact that nobody else around here seems to be bothered with passing budgets. the president hasn't put out a plan to fix the problem. and the senate has for a second year in a row failed to even pass a budget.

we are leading. we are saving medicare. we are getting the debt under control. and we are working to create jobs in this economy. and we are governing by actually paying the bills and passing our appropriation bills. with that i yield. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman very much. i rise in opposition to this republican attempt to deem their budget passed. just deem it passed so we can begin with this process. it's just wrong. it's not the way we should be conducting business, but it's the way they have been operating all year. now, recently radio evangelist harold camping calculated the world would end at precisely 6:00 p.m. on may 21.

well, he was wrong. but much like harold camping's wildly inaccurate predictions, the house republicans have come up with their own apocalyptic vision, the republican rapture. it decides, this budget decides who gets lifted up into the economic stratosphere, and who gets left behind. under this scheme if you are a millionaire or billionaire, you get raptured into heaven. with all of your tax breaks. remaining intact. but, if your grandma and grandpa and your dependent -- and you're dependent upon medicare in order to take care of your health care needs, you get moved to political purg torrey. that's their plan. now, if you're one of the big five oil companies that are reporting record profits, you

get raptured with all of your tax breaks left intact. in this budget which we are debating here today. you keep all of your tax breaks. but if you're a college kid hoping to get a pell grant, no, ladies and gentlemen, you are back in political purg torrey. -- you're an insurance company executive and you are now really happy because of the privatization of medicare and the incredibly increased profits for the insurance industry, you're up here in heaven. you get rapture. this is the budget we're debating right now. good news for all these wealthy people. but if you have alzheimer's or cancer and you're hoping to find medical breakthroughs thearks

cutting the -- breakthrough, they're cutting the n.i.h. budget to find the cure for those diseases. your hopes and dream goes to political purgatory. and if you have any hopes at all of having medicare be saved, well, their budget guarantees that medicare gets privatized. that medicare is ended as we know it. and that medicare budget is completely -- the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. markey: is completely and totally smashed. there's your debate here today, ladies and gentlemen. are you with billionaires, big insurance, big oil? are you with grandma and grandpa making sure that medicare remains in tact for the years ahead? honoring the promise that we made to them, for giving thus great country that we live in today -- us this great country

that we live in today. that's the vote today. vote yes or no on grandma. vote no on that republican budget and protect grandma's health care into the future. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit section 501 for the record as we seem to be commenting about it in a great extent this afternoon. i just want the record to be clear that we submit the record. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. reed: mr. speaker, at this point in time i yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. the speaker: the gentleman from florida is recognized for four minutes. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank my friend first of all from new york, mr. reid, and all -- reed, and also a rules committee member i serve with for the opportunity to support this rule and support the underlying legislation, h.r. 2017, which appropriates funds for our nation's homeland security operations for 2012. just a comment, i thought that's

what you were you were -- what we were here to talk about. so we're going to go back on track in regards to where we should be. as a member of the rules committee i'm proud of this rule. it is the first open rule in four years, mr. speaker. and that's because of you. it's a continuation of our promise to the american people that we're committed to bringing openness and free-flowing debate to this chamber as a service to the american public. it's just like the rules that keep our promises to the american people, so does the underlying legislation, it keeps our promise to reduce spending, to narrow the size and scope of the federal government, it also keeps our promise to provide those men and women who work day in and day out to keep our nation safe with the tools and the resources they need. i've heard a lot about local first responders in connection with this bill. mr. speaker, i spent my entire career in law enforcement, i

spent the last 40 years as a cop and the last 10 of those years i served as a sheriff of a county in florida. you don't need to tell me about what our local first responders need, i know it firsthand, i've lived it. and i can tell you this, we need to follow the local example that those folks in florida and across this nation and states have shown us, our local police and firefighters know how to do more with less. it's one thing the federal government has never quite grasped. would you like to have more money? sure we would. but they understand our nation's in dire fiscal situation and they want more than anything else for america to be here for their future and their children and grandchildren's future. when i was sheriff i was faced with budget shortages and i made

tough cuts, i eliminated programs i'm sure that i would loved to have kept in place but they didn't meet the core mission that i was elected to do. that's how local government works, mr. speaker. and washington needs to learn from local governments in regards to how to get their act together as it relates to the spending. mr. speaker, h.r. 2017's a good bill and i applaud the appropriations committee for the commitment to our homeland security. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and support the open rule. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, the ranking member on homeland security, mr. thompson. the speaker: the gentleman from

mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule for h.r. 2017, the department of homeland security appropriations act of 201. this year marks the 10th an-- 2012. this year marks the 10th anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attack. as americans began to process the carnage inflicted by osama bin laden on our soil, then president bush challenged us as a nation to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to america. for nearly 10 years we've done just that. we've made major investments in intelligence, border security, transportation security and emergency preparedness. h.r. 2017 suddenly veers away from these incremental efforts and as a result set our nation on a dangerously wrong path. to cut homeland security preparedness grants by $2.1 billion at a time when d.h.s. is

calling for a period of heightened alert because of our successful actions against bin laden is deplorable and reckless. how can we continue these efforts with an appropriation bill that funds d.h.s. at 7% below what president obama tells us that d.h.s. needs and is beyond? the probability of a terrorist attack on a major domestic transit system has not subsided nor has mother nature relented and softened the barrage of punishing blows to our communities including such in my own congressional district. this bill sacrifices the security of our communities just to save a penny here and a penny there. our first responders must not be treated as pawns to a political ideology of the day. it is a decimation of the first responder grant program at the hands of the republican leadership that by far is the most offensive aspect of this

bill. the second most offensive aspect of this bill is the shenanigans surrounding -- mr. polis: an additional 30 seconds, mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 0 seconds. mr. thompson: thank you very much. the second most offensive aspect of this bill is the shenanigans surrounding the funding of disaster emergencies. lastly ending medicare in this rule makes absolutely no sense. for these reasons i oppose h.r. 2017 and ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the rule and the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodal. the speaker: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. as member of the rules committee and the budget committee, i'm excited to be down here today. you told us, mr. speaker, when this congress began, that we were going to witness one of the most open congresses in this country's history. and you have delivered on that each and every day and i'm one of the new guys in congress.

i've only been here about 125 days. but what i saw talking about budgets today, what i saw in the budget process was the leadership team and the chair of the rules committee who said, bring me a budget, any budget, i don't care who you are, whether yuret most senior member of this body or the most junior member of this body, bring me a budget and we will consider it on the floor of the united states house of representatives. come on. come all, give us your ideas and we'll consider them. we had that process, i voted for two budgets on that budget voting day, i voted for the republican study committee budget which i thought was a great budget and i voted for the budget committee's budget, i sat on the budget committee, paul ryan and the budget committee put in a tremendous amount of work and that was the budget that ended up carrying the day. and so that's the budget we're operating under right here today. homeland security appropriations bill, first bill out of the chute and what did you do, mr. speaker? you said, come one, come all, if you have an idea about how to

improve this appropriations bill, bring it to the floor of the house and we'll consider it. bring it to the floor of the house and we'll consider it. now, you might think if you don't know as much about this house, if you're a newcomer like me, you might think it goes on that way all the time but it doesn't because it's hard. it's hard, i can only imagine, mr. speaker, what you get from folks back home because they probably say to you, close down the process, push a conservative agenda, do it your way, make people fall in line. and you said no. you said the house works best when the house works its will. you said any member of the house that can find 218 members to agree with them can work their will on the floor and that's the process that we're opening up, not a republican process, not a democratic process, but an american process. where the power of the ideas of what rules the day -- are what rules the day. that's taken a huge commitment

from the speaker and a huge commitment from the rules committee chairman to make this process happen, a huge commitment from the appropriations chairman to make this happen. but i'll tell you, for anybody out there who is thinking in partisan terms, it takes a commitment from both sides of the aisle, open rules break down when we can't make those open rules work together. i see my friend, mr. polis, from the rules committee, strong advocate of the open rules process and here we are, for the first time since july of 2007, and we're going to find out if we can make this work together, new crowd on your side of the aisle, new crowd on my side of the aisle, we're going to find out if we can make it work together, golf bally, i hope we can. i hope we can gauze it's the right thing to do, because i only have a voice in this body when i can bring my amendments to the floor, only have a voice in this body when i can represent the 921,000 people back home and, mr. speaker, you have given that to us over and over again and i thank you. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the democrats have no

problem with the open rule. what the democrats have a problem with is the elimination of medicare which is deemed and passed in the language of the rule itself and cannot be amended after the passage of the rule. it's my honor to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule that is on the floor today because voting for this rule is a vote to abolish medicare. here we are once again after the public has spoken so clearly on this subject of wanting to have medicare as a pillar of health and economic security for our seniors. the republicans saying we're going to double down. not only did we vote to abolish medicare, increasing costs for seniors, lowering benefits and while giving tax breaks to oil companies and corporations for shipping jobs overseas, not only have we done that once, but we're going to do it again

today. on a day that we're going to swear in a new member of congress, a reminder that all of us takes an oath of office to protect and defend. and this bill, the bill that this rule comes up on homeland security, undermines the pabblet -- undermines the ability to protect and defend the american people. so this is a double wacky, it's a threat again to the health and economic security of our seniors and those who depend on medicare and it is a threat to the safety of the american people. i heard my colleague, mr. markey, talk about purgatory and rapture and the rest and his original and effective presentation and it reminded me what we always say when we talk about a budget. that it should be a statement of our values. what is important to us should be reflected there. our budget proposals, we had one under the leadership of chris

van hollen that was heard and voted on by the floor a number of weeks ago, republican budget that is on the floor today in the form of this rule, are windows to the soul of who we are as public officials. and this rule today, which deems passage of the republican budget, is a window to the soul of the republican party in this house of representatives. that it would put oil companies getting big tax subsidies to big oil, would put corporations that ship jobs overseas, would give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country, while it says to seniors, no more medicare for you, you're going to pay more, get less and weaken the middle class at the same time. weakening the middle class because of abolishing medicare and weakening the meddle class because of what it does to

education. for our young children and making college more expensive for nearly 10 million young people in our country. is that an investment in the future? i don't think so. but it's really important when we talk about our soul and our values and our -- what our priorities, that we note that a vote for this bill is a really serious assault on the middle class. people are concerned about the dignity of -- and retirement of our seniors, they're concerned about the education of our children, they want to reduce the deficit, we must create jobs, growth in our economy will help reduce the deficit. this bill does none of the above. . mr. speaker, i have to give you credit for this. the republicans are true to what they believe in. they do not believe in medicare and they are voting today to

honor their beliefs to abolish medicare. that has been a consistent message over time. it is reinforced here today. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on the underlying bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. i just feel it's necessary to again correct the record that what we have done in the proposal has just been referenced by my colleague from california is not to destroy medicare. it's to save medicare. it's to deal with the problem that we all know that medicare faces in an open and honest way. and it clearly states in the document, in the resolution that was passed, that anyone, any senior who is in medicare, on medicare, or within a generation of retiring into medicare, will not be impacted

by anything that we do in that budget. i'd also remind my colleague from california that we stand here today under a proposed open rule, where this body, this chamber will be able to express its will in an open and traditional process of open amendments. let me be clear to the american people what that means. that means any member of this congress, any elected member can come down and speak the voice of his or her constituents and offer an amendment that can be debated on the floor of this house in an open and transparent manner on tv, in their living room so the american people know what we are doing in this chamber. and i applaud you speaker for honoring that commitment that you set forth when you assumed that chair. at this point in time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield a minute to my good friend, the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland. the speaker: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. without objection. mr. southerland: thank you, mr. speaker.

i'd like to thank the gentleman from new york for my time. i have been here five months and a few moments ago i was as angry as i have been in a long time because this afternoon we heard the injection of a judeo-christian event that i was taught as a little boy is precious to my faith and the tenets of jew cayo christians -- judeo-christians around this world, and can i not sit and rise and object and ask everyone in this body, please, let's identify limits. to what we will say and where we will go. because what we say here, the world listens to. but more importantly, more importantly, ok, the god that we pray to listens to. and so it bothers me greatly, i am angered, angered at what i heard and what i witnessed. so we are trying to be in control of my emotions i would just ask everyone, please let's not inject religious events

that many of us are looking forward to in our future. i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: point of parliamentary inquiry. the speaker: the gentleman may state his inquiry. mr. polis: if this rule is passed, would an amendment be germane that would restore medicare under the budget? the speaker: the chair does not respond to hypothetical questions. the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: it is my honor to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one and one half minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. so five months. one of my freshmen colleagues said 125 days in the republican majority, and no jobs bill. in fact, all you tried to do is change medicare as we know it. to make vulnerable seniors pay more and get less.

then you're also doing education cuts to go after the dreams and aspirations of our young people. that's the republican way. today we consider this rule in the homeland security appropriation bill where you actually cut 60% of the moneys that the federal government sends to our local cities. yeah. those cities that are struggling. those cities that protect us. we don't protect the american people from the capitol. the local law enforcement, the local fire department, the local hospitals. if a terrorist attack or a natural disaster happens, the local responders are the ones who first help the american people. and you're cutting the money. they are already under attack at the local level. they are already letting fire

m.e.p. and policemen go, and now you are taking away 60% of the moneys that we send to protect the american people. and what's troubling is that you're limiting the cities where we send some of this money. the speaker: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. polis: additional 15 seconds. ms. sanchez: you are cutting money to places like laughing, orlando, and my hometown of anaheim california, where disneyland is. our american people deserved to be protected, and this congress should get its priorities straight. i yield back. the speaker: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: mr. speaker, we'll reserve at this point in time. the speaker: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. in just moments from now we will have a new democratic colleague from my home state of new york, the democratic congresswoman elect hails from the most republican district in my state, a district that john mccain won in 2008. just one week ago voters in her conservative leaning district resoundingly rejected the republican plan to end medicare. apparently the republican majority here in washington didn't get the message. voting to end medicare once was not enough for them. the rule vote that we are about to take will once again deem the ryan plan to end medicare as enacted and put us on a road to ruin where seniors will see out-of-pocket expenses skyrocket by at least $6,000 every year as medicare is ended so as to continue to do the handouts of tens of billions of dollars to oil companies. in a few moments, after they finish voting to end medicare yet again, i hope that as my

republican colleagues congratulate our new york colleague on her election, they will see her as yet another face and yet another voice, an outspoken voice, to save medicare. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who yields time? mr. reed: i'm going to continue to reserve. the speaker: the gentleman from new york continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. if this rule passes, an amendment will not be in order to restore medicare under the bill. again, while this is an open rule and it is for purposes of department of homeland security amendments, it cannot be amended to undo the budget that is deem passed in the rule itself. with that i yield a minute and a half to the the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for his leadership. i rise in opposition to the rule which will end medicare as we know it. and also to the underlying bill

which reduces homeland security grants by 50% to our cities, to our ports, to our transit. is there any reason to believe, i ask my republican colleagues, that there is a 50% reduction in threat? if anything, law enforcement tells us that the number of threats are up since the death of osama bin laden. and our police commissioner in new york city tells me that since 9/11 there have been 13 serious terrorist attempts. and six of these were focused on mass transit which has been cut by 50%. we need to remember what law enforcement has told us that our anti-terrorist efforts have to be right every day, every hour, every second, every time. yet our terrorist attacks, they

have just have to be lucky once. so i ask my republican colleagues what would be the impact on the loss of lives? on our economy? if we were attacked again as they are trying to do. the chatter is up. law enforcement tells us the threat is up. not down. why are we cutting it 50%? and my republican colleagues, i say to you, that you are not just gambling with dollars. you are gambling with lives. and it is not a gamble -- the speaker: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder. the speaker: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. yoder: i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding time and i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of the rule that we are debating here today so that we can debate a bill on homeland security. that might come as a surprise to many who are watching this debate or the speaker or anyone

else in this chamber today we are actually debating a rule that deals with homeland security. now, the fantasy discussion going on the left right now on any topic that comes to mind might be entertaining to some, but for the rest of this country they would love to see this body actually debate issues that we are on topic, that issue is homeland security. agencies like border control, i.c.e. agents, coast guard personnel, secret service, funding for all sorts of agencies, $1 billion for fema disaster relief fund, are these not issues important enough to discuss on the floor today? the bill prohibits use of funds to remove detainees from guatemala bay. cuba into the united states, denies visa admissions to the united states. all sorts of things that are kate cal -- critical to homeland security. protecting americans from terrorism, keeping americans safe. we are doing it under an open rule. that's the issue on this rule debate. for the first time in four years we are debating an

appropriations bill that affects hundreds of millions of americans. we are allowing every side to bring amendments down to the floor and discuss those issues. this is a critical moment. how many times the folks on the left want to come forward and obfuscate or change the subject. that's fine. we can have those debates and we'll continue to have those debates. what we are debating today, a rule that will allow this body in an open fashion for the first time in anyone's memory to debate an open rule on homeland security. if you have an amendment that's germane to the bill, bring it. if it's found worthy, it will pass. we produced a good piece of legislation that will provide for the security 69 homeland. we have an opportunity today to be serious and debate the topic that is before us on homeland security. and know how many times the left attempts to change the subject from what we are talking about, we know that the homeland security of our country protecting us from terrorism is a critical issue and we will debate it no matter how many times the left tries to stop us. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado.

mr. polis: the gentleman mentioned the open rule. the open rule itself is largely noncontroversial. strong support from both sides of the aisle. what is contained in this rule is the broadest sweeping policy change in recent history. namely the elimination of medicare. that is a controversial element of this rule which is deemed passed by the rule itself. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. for years working americans, paycheck after paycheck, week after week have paid taxes into the medicare trust fund. and after they paid those taxes, this country made a promise to them that medicare's guarantee benefits will be there for them for the rest of their life. the issue before the house today is whether we honor or

dishonor that promise. the republican plan to abandon medicare, abandons those guaranteed benefits. the republican plan to abandon medicare says that rather than seniors and their doctors deciding what care the seniors should get, private health insurance companies make that decision. part of the promise of medicare was that health care would be reasonably affordable to our seniors and retirees. the republican plan to abandon medicare violates that promise. it raises the out-of-pocket cost of health care for our seniors by $6,000 a year. we agree that medicare needs improvement and that medicare outlays need to be restrained, that's why we support giving the medicare administration the

same authority to negotiate prescription drug prices that the v.a. has. instead of just paying whatever the drug companies demand. the issue in this vote is not simply the value of medicare. the issue in this vote is whether americans can value the promise that we made to them in the future. vote against this rule, vote to honor the promise of medicare. .e. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i'd like to clarify for the record that this proposed resolution we are debating, this rule on homeland security appropriations, that's homeland security funding, is but a simple resolution. it is not law. it will not become law.

as clearly articulated in the parliamentary guide entitled "how our laws are made" on page 8 and 9. i feel compelled to clarify the record to ensure that this rule will not end medicare. and even as our budget clearly states, medicare under our budget will be saved. not one senior on medicare will be impacted by any action in that budget. at this point in time i continue to reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i have to disagree with my friend from new york. i have not seen on my three years of the rules committee a deem and pass rule. the house concurrent resolution 34 shall have force and effect. again, force and effect. the traditional language of something that is deemed and passed under a rule. the mere passage of this rule will deem and pass the end of

medicare as we know it as contained in house resolution 34, the republican budget. i'd like to yield 1 behalf minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished manager of this rule and i certainly thank members who are on the floor of the house. mr. speaker, we're in the baseball season, and you can imagine a this rong of teaming odd -- throng of teaming audience and they see strike one, strike two, and it's strike three. the winning side, the republicans, of course, cheer. but the american people lose. they're out. they're struck out. medicare is gone as we know it. let's not fool around. let's not try to have smoke and mirrors. this rule ends medicare as we know it. we don't have to play games. the debt relief that was put on the floor ends medicare as we know it, and this bill on homeland security is tone deaf to the words of the late osama

bin laden that said, we're looking at your airport. we're looking at your airlines. we're locking at your rails. and this homeland security -- we're looking at your rails. and this homeland security budget cuts the programs necessary to protect the american people. first, we throw out the seniors of medicare. they we don't let for t.s.a. inspectors. in my own state there are fires that are burning right now, and we're telling fema that we don't have enough money to provide for you. did you see the story on the news that indicated that firefighters were left watching a man drown? drown because they had to rescue team of that community and people were crying. firefighters whose first job is to be a pictures responder, denied because they don't have the funding to be able to help the people that they serve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: vote no on

this rule. strike out those folks and let the american people -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: mr. speaker, can i inquire of the chair how much time both sides have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. reed: mr. speaker, at this point in time i'd like to yield my good friend from georgia, mr. woodall, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. woodall: this is a serious topic we are talking about today, the homeland security appropriations bill. you know, when you pass a responsible budget as we did here in the house, you have to make tough choices. i learned here as a freshman we do these 10-year budget plans but only one year matters because the next congress does year two, year three and year four. the serious decisions we are making in this budget is what happens in year one and that's the homeland security appropriations bill that's before us here today. how are we going to fund homeland security for year one? and we're down here talking

about all these ancillary issues, and i tell you, this one's important. this one's important. this one's happening. this isn't smoke and mirrors 10 years down the road. this happens today. and the appropriations committee have worked long and hard to craft the delicate balance they could. 42 cents for every dollar we're borrowing. this is not a state of mind. that's a fact. it's a fact. and we can't afford to shortchange the work we're doing on the homeland security appropriations bill on these -- i can't think of a kind word to say. i'm not going to say anything at all, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. deutch: i thank the

gentleman from colorado. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to othis rule. from the retirees i serve in south florida, to the middle class family of new york, the american people have overwhelmingly rejected the reckless republican budget. the republican budget ends medicare and replaces it with a coupon. a coupon that fails to even approach the cost of private health insurance. it guts medicaid depended on by millions of impoverished children, nursing home patients, seniors who need home health services and disabled americans. it will desfroy 2.1 million jobs when we cannot afford higher unemployment. this plan is opposed by the senate, the president and most important low the american people. yet, today republicans will vote to deem and pass the ryan budget. the distinguished rules committee chairman who decried deem and pass during the health care reform debate and claimed

process is substance has apparently had a stunning change of heart. we were told that using deem and pass to extend health care coverage to the uninsured is an abomination. apparently we learned today it should be reserved for slashing bep fits to seniors. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. the american people want a bipartisan budget that responsibly reduces the deficit, creates new jobs and protects medicare and medicaid for disabled and elderly americans, not this republican budget. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. we're prepared to close at this point in time so i'd inquire of my colleague from colorado if he's prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i yield 1 1/2 minute to the gentleman from california, mr. -- 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. garamendi: the distinguished chair of the budget committee spoke here a few minutes ago. he spoke about a moral obligation. an interesting definition of moral obligation, an obligation to maintain the benefits that the insurance industry has, an obligation to maintain the subsubsidy that the american taxpayer gives to the richest industry in the world, the oil industry, billions of dollars a year, an obligation to maintain the tax benefits to the wealthiest millionaires and billionaires in the world. apparently that's his definition of a moral obligation. we have a different definition on our side of the aisle. we have a definition on our side of the aisle that says, it is the obligation of this society to provide medical care to our seniors. our republican colleagues see their moral obligation as terminating, ending medicare for all americans who are not

yet 55 years of age. say it any way you want, but that's precisely what your budget does. it terminates medicare. is that your moral obligation? it's not ours on our side. our side is to maintain the promise that when a senior in the united states becomes 65 years of age they will have medicare. our good chairman comes and says, we're not cutting benefits for seniors. that's not true. in fact, you're cutting $700 billion out of the medicaid program, a program where 2/3 of the money goes to seniors who are in nursing homes. mr. polis: i yield an additional 15 seconds. mr. garamendi: you say it's a moral obligation to cut $500 billion out of the health care bill. no way. that was money that came out of a subsidy to the insurance companies.

and you say it's a moral obligation to leave the insurance companies alone so they can continue -- against the people of america. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. reed: we'll continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california -- colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. in addition to moving forward the homeland security bill under an open rule, which would have strong bipartisan support, and i praise my colleagues on the rules committee. i hope this is the first of many open rules. in addition to moving forward the homeland security bill under the rule, this rule includes language deeming the ryan budget passed. that's right. we're voting one again on the same plan that the american people resoundedly rejected in last week's special election in new york. if this rule passes the ryan

budget which ends medicare will become final and forcible budget on the house side until a conference report is adopted which is unlikely to happen in this congress, especially if the house republicans continue to insist on the end of medicare as a condition of passing the final budget. a yes vote on this rule is a yes vote on the ryan plan and a yes vote to eliminate medicare. now, this is the six times in 36 years that the house and senate will fail to adopt a budget and the house has used deeming resolutions in the past. however, never has a deeming resolution been used for such a tremendous policy change. namely, the elimination of medicare. as then minority leader john boehner said, this legislative trick has been around for a long time, but it's never been used for a bill so controversial and so massive in scope. now that, mr. speaker, was in reference to the democratic's efforts last year to pass the affordable care act.

the deem and pass was not used to pass that bill. here we are in the 112th congress for the republicans to seek to end medicare. we are talking about ending medicare. as the congressional budget office, our bipartisan study group has confirmed, a typical beneficiary will spend more for health care under the proposal than under the congressional budget office's long-term scenario. second, the government's contribution will grow more slowly than health care costs leaving more for beneficiaries to pay. yes, mr. speaker, we are talking about the elimination of medicare under this rule. not even under a bill with debate on both sides. not even amendable. a rule is not amendable. although, this rule provides for debate of the homeland security bill which will be fair and allow amendments to be put forth by both parties under it. the rule is not amendable, unchangeable and if passed by this body of the house of representatives will deem a budget passed that eliminates medicare for the american

people. i urge a no vote on the rule, and i also will be opposing the underlying bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. we have had a spirited debate on the floor of this chamber over this rule. i applaud that debate because that's what the american people sent us here to do is to have the debate in an open process, on tv, in front of the american people. and that's what this rule does. this rule is a true open rule where any member of this chamber, democrat, republican, can come down and submit an amendment, debate it in front of the american people and have it voted on by each and every member of this house so that this house will speak its will. i applaud our speaker for accomplishing that clear goal

he set out. but as we have this can he bait, mr. speaker, i remind all my colleagues that america also sent us a message last november that we need to be honest with the american people. it means that we do not play games in this chamber. and nothing could be further from the truth than the constant arguments that we had to stand up and clarify that this rule kills medicare as we know it. this rule has no legal effect. this rule will not be presented to the president for signature and become law of the land. and mind you, the reference to the house republican budget, the paul ryan budget, the provision that's been talked about here to great extent, clearly states that it is the policy of this chamber, the policy as set forth in that

budget that all those on medicare will not be impacted by that budget. all those seniors who are within 10 years of retiring and becoming eligible for medicare will not be impacted by that budget. we are acting in a responsible manner on this side of the aisle. and we are dealing with dire times. . i was disappointed we didn't have more spirited debate on the substance of the rule. that is the homeland security appropriations bill. we live in dire fiscal times in the united states of america. we are going to be honest with the american people. and we have to make some tough choices. but this should send a message to every man, woman, and child in america that the days of reckless spending have caught up to us, because we do have to have the debate of where we are going to cut. and we are talking about cuts in the areas of homeland

security. we better wake up as a body, as a chamber, and recognize that if we don't get our fiscal house in order, not only will we jeopardize our national security, we will go bankrupt. that ends america as we know it. and also it will destroy the american market that we are trying to ignite in our private sector because if we do not send a message that we got our fiscal house in order, then people are not going to invest in america and that will not put people back to work and put people back on to a payroll. with that i urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the underlying resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, after 30 years of service in the office of the law revision council, and over 34 years with the federal government, i have decided it is time to retire. with your approval my last day as law revision counsel will be june 1, 2011. i started with the offense just seven years after it was established as part of the

boeing committee reforms of 1974. the office was given the functions of classifying new laws to the united states code, preparing and publishing the code, and drafting legislation to enact titles of the code into positive law. over the years i have had the privilege of working on each of these functions and my career was given me a unique perspective on the content and codification of federal law. i have had at least a familiarity with practically every law enacted during the past 25 years and have worked my way through thousands of laws, including countless appropriations, defense authorizations, health reforms, and omnibus reconciliations. we in the office of law revision counsel regard the text of these laws with a certain reverence as we incorporate new laws into the code, every effort is made to ensure each word, each punctuation mark, and each directive is given the effect intended by congress.

with the assistance and excellent staff we have placed in the office, i feel confident the code is being maintained with high degree of accuracy and reliability that is required for the official code. while accuracy has always been our highest priority, we have also been working on improving the timeless and usability of the code. since 2005 the time it takes to do an annual update of the code has been reduced by more than 18 months. and last year we introduced the u.s.c. prelim on u.s. code website to allow even quicker all be it -- albeit preliminary updates to selected code tights. as to usability, the code is about to get a lot better. in a manner of days we will release a new u.s. code website featuring a new sophisticated search engine, improved interface, and materials to help the public understand the use of the code. the links will soon be followed by further improvements, including hyper links to reference code and statute provisions and integration of

the u.s.c. prelim and prior versions of the code into new web sighs. conversion of the code data into xml is another ongoing protect which should bear fruit in the near future. the overall organization of the code remains a concern for me but significant progress was made during the last several years. the codification of title 46 shipping was completed with the enactment of public law 109-304 and in just the past six months law revision counsel bills to enact title 41, public contracts, and title 51, national and commercial space programs became law. each new positive law title is a major accomplishment, but the time and effort it took to get these titles enacted indicates the huge task that remains before the goal of an entirely enacted code is realized. it has been a pleasure to work for the house of representatives throughout my career. i have especially enjoyed my association with the other staff members in my office and

have a deep appreciation for the expertise and dead case and the -- dedication and the fine work they do every day. i'm also grateful for the support and cooperation of your office, the committees on the judiciary and appropriations, the government printing office, and the other offices of the house. respectfully yours, paul g. liefever, law revision counsel. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, a statement by the speaker is reserved in the record at this point. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 287. by the yeas and nays. adoption of house resolution 287, if ordered. and the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 802, by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes.

the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 287 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 42, house resolution 287, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2017, making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] span.org/shop.

>> "washington journal" continues. >> we're back with jackie speier, who voted yes. why did you vote yes? guest: the interest and wanted to reduce spending is real and important and we need to do it. this was a sham last night.

this was all about pinning the tail on the donkey. we got word on a holay afternoon that we are going to have this vote. it was really a joke. host: republicans say that this was to prove a test vote to show democrats and the president that a clean vote to increase the debt ceiling is just not politically possible. the majority of more americans to know what the debt ceiling increase. guest: i am for spending cuts. most democrats will say cutting spending is important. part of that spending is providing a tax cut to the wealthiest americans in this country. when you look at a millionaire $100,000 tax cut,

that is something we cannot afford. if you look at what we have to do to be responsible -- host: part of that responsibility is looking at medicare. medicare must be on the table as well. we must include medicare cuts. guest: what is interesting about my republican colleagues is that they did not get the democrats at all. we are not going to cut medicare. we are not going to cut the benefits to senior citizens in this country. if we say, no longer will we allow part d, in wch congress

was tied in terms of negotiating, this you bet we will be willing to do this. look at the veterans administration and the kinds of discounts would get for pharmaceutical drugs. it is 2/3 of what we're paying. host: the republicans say that this is not catastrophic if we do not raise the debt ceiling. there is a proposal that the treasury could pay bondholders with incoming tax revenue and delay other payments pending a resolution and that that would be an ok way to let the government go about it. guest: if we did not raise the debt ceiling, to pay the interest on our debt, it would

require us to cut 35% of the federal government cost budgets. three $20 billion -- $3.8 billioa day. we would stop paying military personnel. that is the huge part of the federal budget. we cannot take ourselves down this road. this is p the tail on the donkey. this is a sham. throwing sand at the democrats. fine, you made your point. cuts will be rational and reason and affect the wealthiest in this country as well. host: republican freshman from tennessee, and this is what she said. >> we hear from economist belly

of less than five years to turn things around for the united states will sink under all this dead. -- under all this debt. the time is now to fix this because we're out of time and we of the opportunity to change for the good the way whington is spending. but it does not seem the other end of pennsylvania avenue thinks we should change anything. they are happy to ke kicking the can down the road. the road has run out. when this measure to raise the nation's debt limit fails on the house floor, we will be sending the white house a message -- you cannot get another blank check from us, mr. president.

host: congresswoman? guest: i think she was telling the republican line. the president said he is willing to negotiate with the republicans. i never saw president bush engage with the democrats when he was in power. he will meet with the republicans today and the democrats tomorrow. i think that is good for the country. host: he will be meeting with republicans later in the week. steny or put out a warning to the president -- steny hoyer put out a warning to the president. uest: i share mr. hoyer's position. last winter, a huge benefits

accrue to the wealthiest in this country. i think he did that knowing he did not need house democrats. we have bece somewhat irrelevant in this process. i think that is the nature of politics. the negotiations go on between house publicans and the senate democrats. that has what has become irrelevant. host: are you frustrated? guest: that is the nature of the dynamic. i think he will listen to us. in the end, he is the leader of our party

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235 and the nays are 186. the previous question is ordered.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a letter received from mr. robert brim and on behalf of mr. todd valentine, co-executive directors, new york state board of elections, indicating that according to the unofficial returns of the special election held may 24, 2011, the honorable kathy courtney houkle was elected representative to congress for the 26th congressional district, state of new york. with best wishes i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. clerk. >> mr. speaker. the speaker: for what purpose

does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from new york, the honorable kathryn courtney houkle, be permitted to take the oath today. as pointed out, her elections results have not arrived but there is no contest and no questions have been raised as to her election. the speaker: without objection ex--- without objection, so ordered. will the represent-elect houkle and members of the new york delegation present themselves in the well of the house?

the speaker: if all of the members can continue to stand as representative-elect raise her right hand and do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic? that you will bear truthfully an allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, that will you well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you're about to enter so help you god? congratulations. you're now a member.

the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that king be given permission to join with me at the time. it's a great honor for us at this time to present to you a young lady who did it the hard way, she's earned it, she's here with her husband bill, her dad pat, her dad jack and her mom pat, bill and katie, the children are here, and the symbolic of what a great country we have during this time, pearn with her credentials, it goes to show that in this great country of ours, the people govern.

in order to give her the bipartisan support that she truly deserves, i'd like to yield at this time to my friend, peter king. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. rangel, thank you for yielding. let me just join all of you in welcoming ms. hochul to the house of representatives, congresswoman, we look forward to working with you on behalf of the nation and the state and on behalf of all republicans, we wish you the best of luck and i yield back to mr. rangel. mr. rangel: i yield to you, congresswoman hochul.

the speaker: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. hochul: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. rangel and mr. king. it is truly an honor and a privilege to be here on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives where i will serve the people of the 26th district of the state of new york. i promise to work for them tirelessly every single day and continue to fight for them with every breath i have. and i look forward to working with each of you in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation as we work toward a brighter future and a stronger america. this is a proud day for my family and for me to begin this new chapter in our lives. a chance that will serve the people of my district and your districts. but before i begin this journey, i must thank the people who helped me get to

where i am today. to the people of the 26th congressional district, i am humbled by your support and the faith that you put in me. to my family, my husband, bill of 27 years. you're my rock and inspiration, honey. my son, billy, my daughter, katie, my parents, jack and pat courtney. my brothers and my sister, sheila, who worked tirelessly throughout this campaign. a special thanks to the new york congressional delegation, both our senators and dozens of congressmen who supported us throughout this election. to my incredible campaign team

and thousands and thousands of supporters and volunteers who worked tirelessly throughout this election. and to one of my great mentors who, john lafall, whom i was honored to serve many years ago. today, i enter these chambers confident that we can tackle the challenges that are presented to us. we can and must find commonsense solutions to the problems facing each of our districts and the country. as we have learned, our constituents expect and deserve no less. thank you very much.

the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hochul, the whole number of the house is now 433. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request on house resolution 287 on which the chair will put de novo. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 42, house resolution 287, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1227, making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker: the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker.

the speaker: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request a recorded vote. the speaker: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 231. the nays are 187. the resolution is adopted, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules

and pass h.r. 802, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 41. h.r. 802, a bill to direct the secretary of veterans affairs to establish a vet star award -- vetstar award program. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 408, the nays are 11, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. i ask for a unanimous consent that all members my have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2017 and that i may include material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 287 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2017. the chair appoints the gentleman

from california, mr. dreier, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2017 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from alabama, mr. ard holt, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: it is my honor to present the fiscal year 2012 appropriation bill for the department of homeland security. the chair: the chairman of the appropriations committee is absolutely right, the house is not in order. members will take their seats. and with discussions retire to the cloakroom. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: thank you. it is nye honor to present the fiscal year -- it is my honor to present the appropriations bill for the department of homeland security. this bill before us today, perhaps more than any other bill, exemplifies the difficult choices that need to be made in order to address our nation's fiscal crisis. this bill demonstrates how we can fully fund vitalseri ogmshi ao dung enngvell furthermore this bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. both are national security priorities and both are vigorously addressed in this

bill. i'm under no illusion that everyone here in this chamber will agree with the spending reductions included in this legislation. but now more than ever our government needs fiscal discipline and this bill takes the necessary steps toward that goal. the bottom line, more money and more government do not equal more security. so in this time of skyrocketing debt and persistent threats, we must get our homeland security priorities right. the bill before us today provides $40.6 billion in discretionary funding or almost $3 billion which is 7% below the request and $1.1 billion or almost 3% below the f.y. 2011 level. in addition, the bill also includes $1 billion in offsets, emergency supplemental funding for fema's disaster relief fund immediately upon enactment. there are no earmarks that are set out in this bill or the accompanying report.

the bill places priority on funding our nation's greatest security needs. fully funding all frontline personnel such as border security, c.b.p. officers, i.c.e. officers, coast guard, military personnel and secret service agents and fully funding all intelligence, watch listing and threats targeting functions. in addition the bill provides funding for the administration and the department of homeland security have failed. this bill makes up for nearly $650 million shortfall handed to us by the department through phony, unauthorized fee collections. it is irresponsible for the administration to submit a budget based on an illusion that congress is going to raise taxes or fees under the current economy. this bill also addresses the inadequate request for disaster relief funding and provides the resources to help our communities recover from natural disasters. like the unprecedented flooding across the mississippi valley, the tornados that devastated my

home state of alabama a few weeks ago and of course the horrific tornado that destroyed much of joplin, missouri, just a little over a week ago. however, programs that have been underperforming and failing to execute their budgets or which have repeatedly ignored congressional directives to measure the results are significantly reduced. in short, this bill places a priority on the taxpayers' limited dollars toward the security programs that will have an immediate impact upon our national security and responsibly reduce spending wherever possible. the bill is constructed around three core principles. number one, fiscal discipline. number two, target investments and security operations and disaster relief. and number three, meaningful, hard-hitting oversight. first, on fiscal discipline, the bill goes further than simply cutting spending. this bill insists upon real

reform. reform in how the department justifies its budget, reform on how fema manages first responder grants and reform on how fema, the department and the administration budget for the cost of disaster relief. number two, on security the bill includes nearly $150 million worth of targeted investments above the budget request for security operations. the frontline programs that are among the most critical at keeping our nation secure and these activities that directly counter recent terrorist attacks and address known threats. on disaster relief i have seen firsthand what natural disasters can do over the past few weeks and i can tell you that my constituents in alabama are expecting fema to get it right. so this bill picks up where where we left off -- up from where we left off and provides an increase of $850 million above the request and within the budget for fema's disaster relief fund to address the known

and expected cost of disasters in f.y. 2012. and as we added with unanimously in our full committee markup of the bill last week, we added $1 billion in offset emergency supplemental funding, provided to fema to ensure that disaster relief efforts stay on track this year and well into 2012. and, three, finally, oversight. our subcommittee has a long tradition of insisting upon results for each and every taxpayer dollar that is appropriated. this is a testament to the previous leadership on this subcommittee that was exhibited by our founding chairman of this subcommittee, chairman rogers, and also my predecessor and now the ranking subcommittee ranking member, mr. price. this bill continues the dedication to frontline security programs and robust oversight by

including numerous spend plan requirements. reporting requirements and operational requirements such as border patrol staffing levels and increase to i.c.e. capacity. i know there have been some criticism on the funding level this bill is recommending for fema's first responder grants. let me emphasize that there is more than $13 billion in the pipeline that has not been spent. but fema has yet to establish a credible method for measuring the impact of these grants. so this bill takes bold steps to get fema's fiscal house in order, requiring accountability for every dollar spent, requiring a plan for drawing down the enormous unexpended balances and consolidating duplicative grant programs. putting priority on high-risk needs, rewarding programs like the emergency management performance grants that actually spend their funds witesly -- wisely and are willing to

measure their results. i know how important first responders are to this nation, we see it every day. but we simply cannot keep on throwing money into a clogged pipeline when our debt is soaring out of control. i believe it's our duty to reform these grant programs. mr. chairman, this bill is about putting a priority on limited dollars and robustly supporting the most essential functions. the department of homeland security with all its critical missions is not immune from fiscal discipline. that means the department has to find the most cost effective way to meet its mission requirements. the american people are demanding no less. in closing, let me thank ranking member price, although we have certainly had a turbulent year he has been a statesman and a true partner as we worked on this vital bill. i sincerely thank him for his input and his contributions that he has made on this bill. in addition, i'd like to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking members of the full

committee, chairman rogers and ranking member dicks. as much as we have had to make difficult choices and tradeoffs at subcommittee level, i know that both of these gentlemen have had to make much more difficult decisions dealing with all 12 subcommittee budgets. finally i'd like to take a moment to thank the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. namely stephanie gupta and paul cox on the minority staff. jeff ashford, chris mallard, kathy crenger, rebecca orr, ann marie and bill and ben nicholson who is the clerk of this committee on the majority side. i believe this bill reflects our best efforts to address our nation's most urgent needs, security and fiscal discipline.

i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i might utilize. i'm pleased that we're considering the fiscal year 2012 department of homeland security appropriations bill in a timely fashion and under an open rule. chairman alder --ed aer holet -- aderholt has been a true professional in the drafter of this bill and certainly want to share in his commendation of all of our staff on both sides of the aisle. for the second year in a row, overall funding for the department of homeland security will drop. it is below the president's request and returns the funding to the 2009 level which is concerning to many people, including myself.

this allocation has required chairman aderholt to make some tough decisions. he's been able to retain adequate funding for the front line employees of the department of homeland security to continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, to protect our nation's airports and sea ports and to respond to the waves of natural disasters that our country has experienced this spring. the same, however, is not true, unfortunately, of homeland security grant programs, which are cut radically. providing a total of $1 billion for allstate and local grants or 65% breaux the presidents a request and providing $350 million for firefighter assistance grants. that's almost 50% below an already reduced request. breaks faiths with the states and localities that depend on us as partners to secure our communities. these cuts will be especially harmful as our states and

municipalities are being forced to slash their own programs. for example, according to the association of firefighters, 650 fewer fire irets will be on the job if these cuts in this bill are enacted. i can't see any defensible argument for cuts of this magnitude. cuts on cuts already made in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations. they will do great damage to local preparedness, to emergency response in our communities and to the recovering economy. these grant programs equip our state and local partners to be ready for a daster so they can mitigate its impact and respond effectively. while this bill rightly seeks to help states and localities remr. after a disaster strikes, it decimates the -- that exposes our community to greater risk and potentially

raises the cost of disasters when they occur. and we shouldn't ignore the cost of layoffs on our economic recovery. this bill recommends other sdrastic reductions. for example, cutting -- drastic reductions. for example, cutting research in half. they would have aviation security and explosive detection devices and two cutting edge near-term research projects, but other critical research under way, including research on cybersecurity, disaster resiliencey, the detection of chemical and biological threats, this research simply wouldn't be funded in 2012, if ever. the bill also greatly reduces funds for information technology needs and construction activities. it includes no funding for the new d.h.s. headquarters that's already under construction, and the related lease consolidation

efforts. we've been told repeatedly by the administration that deferring these investments will ultimately affect front line operations and cost us more money in the future and i believe that they are absolutely correct. now, i recognize that the administration budget left chairman aderholt some holes to fill, but the real problem here is the bill's allocation in the budget resolution. that's thanks to a commeetly unrealistic spending -- completely unrealistic spending cap set forth by the administration. we're seeing the results of that deeply flawed plan. we can't fund our dual responsibility to respond to all hazards. the majority further exacerbated the inquatses by adding $850 million in disaster relief beyond the president's

request due to flooding. now, contrary to bipartisan tradition, the additional spending was not designated as an emergency for budget purposes. and as a result, these disaster funds come out of the hide of first responder funding. we gave the majority two chances to correct this flaw by designating the funding increase, that is the increase beyond the president's request as an emergency. once in last week's appropriation committee markup and yesterday in the rules committee. unfortunately the majority refused and passed up the opportunity to get us to a point where both parties might be able to support this bill. i want to close by reiterating my appreciation for the chairman's efforts, for the staff's efforts to work with us on many, many issues in this bill, and for their valiant efforts to sustain our front

line federal homeland security operations. but the bill does fall short of our obligations in critical aspects. the inadequate allocation makes it difficult to repair this bill. but i and other members will be offering amendments to move it in a positive direction. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama, the subcommittee chairman, rise? mr. aderholt: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to engage in a colloquy about some of the anti-terrorism standards. the committee on energy and commerce has voted by more than 2/3 to favorably report to the house a bill to extend authorization for it through fiscal 2017. mr. murphy: it contains authorizations for appropriations for the full seven years and that provision

conforms to the majority leader's cut-go protocols. i understand the need to fund the chemical plants for five years. we need to get the job done on this manner, mr. aderholt. mr. aderholt: i'll be glad to. i want to thank them on the expedited basis this year. we do hope and expect that cfat will be under regular order prior to the start of the new fiscal year. however, it was important that we included funding for the 2012 appropriation bill for cfats and we do not want that line item to appear to be in conflict with the sunset date of october 4, 2011. i look forward to a long-term authorization extension so that these chemical facilities and the people who work in them can have a long-range certainty with respect to anti-terrorism plans and investments. we look forward to a good authorizing bill becoming law

and time to guide our final 2012 agreements on the cfats' funding. mr. murphy: i thank the chairman for his support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the ranking member of our full committee, the distinguished gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the chair: the gentleman from washington, the ranking member of the committee on appropriations, is recognized for three men's. mr. dicks: mr. -- the chair: the ranking member of the committee on appropriations, is recognized for three minutes. mr. dicks: i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this bill and for the committee staff that's worked long days and many late nights to produce the bill for consideration today. i'd like to commend the majority's effort to accommodate many of the concerns from members on the democratic side. i'd also like to thank chairman

rogers and aderholt of bringing this bill to the floor through regular order and working with us to bring it to the floor with a rule that allows members to offer their amendments. at the outset i want to state for the record that the allocation for this bill is too low. it is about $1.1 billion below the f.y. 2012 enacted level and -- f.y. 2011 enacted level. it would represent the second straight year of a declining homeland security budget. some parts of this bill are very good. and i commend the chairman for providing adequate funding for the front line employees of the department of homeland security to continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our airports and sea ports and to respond to the series of natural disasters we have experienced this spring. however, some serious gaps remain. my colleague, mr. price, has already described in great detail the dangerous reductions in our support for the nation's first responders.

also slashed in this bill is the budget for research and development activities at the department. the bill approved by the full committee provides less than $400 million for the science and technology directates research and development operation account, a cut of more than 40%. at this level for 2012 s&t has informed us that many critical research efforts already under way on cybersecurity, disaster resiliencey and detection of chemical and biological threats would be halted. america's technological edge is one of our great assets, and in the fight against terrorism i believe it would be a mistake to retreat from the aggressive pursuit of new solutions. i also want to bring my colleagues' attention to another disturbing precedent-setting provision of this bill. it would require the president to send a budget amendment for additional disaster relief funding three months before the

balance of available fund reaches $800 million and would require these additional funds to be fully offset from discretionary budget accounts. certainly democrats as well as republicans would like to see less reliance on supplemental appropriations to fund known disaster relief needs. but when disasters strike, victims need help, and they need help quickly. we should not risk delaying disaster relief because of partisan battles over proposed assets, nor should we create a mechanism that would tie up the relief process because a disaster did not do us the courtesy of providing three months' notice. during our consideration of the bill, we have the opportunity to address these and other serious flaws and i am hopeful we will be able to do so. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i would like to yield five minutes to the distinguished chairman of the

full appropriations committee, mr. rogers of kentucky. the chair: the chairman of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman and thank chairman aderholt for the time. more importantly, thank him for the great work that he has done in perfecting this bill and bringing it to the floor, along with the accolades that have already been said about the staff and the other members of the subcommittee. so, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i, of course, rise in support of this bill. when i became chairman of this committee, i promised to return to regular order open rules and the completion of as many appropriation bills as possible prior to the august recess. and i intend to stick by that promise, and i appreciate the cooperation of my ranking member, mr. dicks, who has been

very, very helpful in this process already. i look forward to an open amendment process, lively debate over the next several months. i also vow, mr. chairman, we would cut spending wherever possible to help balance our budgets. the appropriations committee is dedicated to the careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and you'll see that in each of these bills, these 12 bills that we put out this year, that that will be a hallmark, careful stewardship of money. we then make the most of our very limited resources in our limited government, and that includes the department of homeland security. we begin this year with the homeland security appropriations bill because we can all agree that our national security is number one

priority. every day our citizens worry about constant terrorist threats, the security of our air and seaports and the defense of our rail systems. but we also face the very real dangers of uncontrolled spending and skyrocketing debt. americans deserve to live and work in a country that will protect not only their physical safety but also their economic livelihood. the bill maintains the ability to keep our americans safe while also reining in the out-of-control deficit spending, providing $40.6 billion in total nonemergency funding for the various programs within d.h.s. this is a decrease of $1.1 billion below last year's level. it funds the critical front line personnel, operations and

programs needed to uphold the highest levels of national security. within this bill we bolstered our immigration and border security efforts, funded the maritime and security activities of the coast guard and boosted security efforts to address air cargo threats. the bill alsaddress the president's ovtly inadequate request for known disaster relief costs. it can be nearly impossible, in fact it is impossible, to plan for acts of god. but over the past few weeks mother nature has wreaked havoc across our midwest and south and other parts of the country. demonstrating the need for sufficient disaster relief funding. i'm proud that we have added $1 billion to the disaster relief fund while completing offsetting

this increase by taking unused funding from the department of energy. we've significantly reduced or eliminated ineffective and wasteful programs while requiring reforms in underperforming programs through heightened oversight to get the most out of each and every tax dollar. this includes long overdue reform on the state and local grant program under the federal emergency management agency which has been plagued by inefficiency. these grants often remain in federal coffers for years to come. right now, as you heard, there's a backlog of more than $13 billion in unspent grant funds. why should we pack a clogged pipe, as chairman aderholt has said, at a time when we are

strapped for money as we are? this bill reduces funding for that program by $2.1 billion, changing the structure and requiring increased measurement and reporting and getting the money out of the pipeline and into the hands of our first responders and our local communities and states. this bill does not include funding for additional advanced inspection technology body scanners -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. rogers: or other staff, it prohibits funding to transfer, lease or assist in the transfer of guantanamo detainees to or within the u.s. and in accordance with the house rules there are no earmarks in this bill. the misleading budget request from the president for d.h.s. included undefined and

unspecified administrative savings and relied on $650 million of revenue from fees congress has not approved. this bill follows both the spirit and the letter of the law , that we must make real budget cuts. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. rogers: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to one of our fine subcommittee members from california, ms. roybal-allard. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard, is recognized for three minutes. ms. roybal-allard: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this bill which irresponsibly slashes over $1 billion from programs that protect and support the ability of our local police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel to quickly and adequately respond to a disaster or a terrorist attack. the destructive flooding across the mississippi basin and the

devastating tornados in alabama and missouri have demonstrated the need for a rapid and effective response to save lives. this is true of other parts of our country like my home city of los angeles, which is vulnerable to fires and earthquakes and is one of the top 10 targets for a terrorist attack. my police departments, firefighters and first responders have said that the cuts in this bill will delay their implementation of a badly needed interoperable communication system which is critical to their emergency coordination efforts. it was the lack of this kind of technology during the 9/11 attacks that contributed to hundreds of deaths. the cuts in this bill also jeopardize the security of our nation's ports, the port of los angeles-long beach, for example, tells us that the cuts to port security grants would seriously

threaten their ability to protect the port and to continue critical security training programs. an attack on this complex alone would have devastating consequences on our economy. fema director testified before our subcommittee that degrading the capabilities of state and local governments would likely magnify the impact of a disaster and ultimately increase the total cost to taxpayers. this bill turns a blind eye to these realities. it is a dangerous bill that weakens our national security and undermines the ability of our first responders to safely meet the dangerous challenges they face every day. america cannot cut its way to greater security. today's realities require that our first responders and our department of homeland security receive funding with the scale

and the severity of the threats america faces. i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 2017. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. carter. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of fiscal year 2012 department of homeland security appropriations act. this bill cuts $1.1 billion from last year's level and $30 billion from the president's request while still providing the resources needed to ensure that our borders are safe and secure and our homeland is safe and secure. all frontline defenders including the border patrol, immigration and customs enforcement agents, coast guard, military personnels and secret service agents are fully funded.

in fact, this measure substantially increases funding for many of these frontline defenders over the president's budget request while eliminating waste in other areas. it ensures our borders will be secure by providing both c.b.p. and i.c.e. with all necessary resources. it ensures our homeland will be protected from terrorist threats by giving t.s.a. additional funds to conduct air cargo screenings. it ensures that the federal emergency management agency, fema, will have the flexibility and funds needed to respond to disasters, including the floods along the mississippi river value yrk the tornados that have swept the nation and the wildfires that have devastated my home state of texas. this also includes 169 oversight actions which will force the obama administration to be accountable to the congress and ultimately to the people of the united states. at a time when china owns $1.1

trillion of our publicly held debt, we must make hard choices on spending here in d.c. during these difficult economic times, just like thousands of families across this country do every day. i would like to commend chairman aderholt and ranking member price for their leadership on this critical measure and i urge my colleagues to join in supporting this very important bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i'd like to ask to reserve as the chairman has further speakers. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the homeland security's appropriations bill. as a member of the committee from a 9/11 state, i work daily to ensure that our state and nation are prepared to meet any

and all potential homeland security threats, whether those threats come from natural events or from activities of violent international extremists. one month after osama bin laden was brought to justice, we cannot ignore the fact that terrorists are plotting and planning at this very moment to harm americans everywhere. they're waiting for us to let down our guard so they can attack our communities and our neighbors. mr. chairman, it remains a dangerous world, we must remain vigilant. however, we must also remember that one of the greatest threats to our national security is our growing $14.3 trillion national debt. we've heard that from our civilian and military leaders. consequently our subcommittee has carefully examined the president's $43.5 billion request and we've had to make some hard choices and i congratulate chairman aderholt and mr. price for making those choices. in this context i must say for

the record i am concerned about the extent of the reductions to fema's state and local grant programs included in the bill. a lot more could be said. i also recognize that we have already made substantial investments in these important areas for over nine years. mr. chairman, i support the chairman's intent to force the department to make tough decisions on spending. it's imperative at a department with over 230,000 employees and dozens of agencies and directorates under its jurisdiction that they make the hard choices. this bill will ensure that the department is accountable for taxpayers' dollars. we've witnessed the infusions of many millions of taxpayer dollars, we've witnessed over the last nine years. and lastly, as one of the three appropriators that are liaison to the intelligence committee, i note that the bill fully funds the president's requested funding increases for intelligence gathering

activities at the department of homeland security. i support the bill and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i yield two minutes -- the chair: does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, i would ask to continue to reserve. mr. aderholt: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2017, the homeland security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012. as we all know we're closing in on the 10th anniversary of the september 11 attacks and this week marks the one-month -- marks one month since the death of osama bin laden. in communities across the country and particularly in alabama, as ably represented by the chairman of the subcommittee, and missouri, are

realing from some of the most devastating storms and -- reeling from some of the most devastating storms and tornados in their history. i'm pleased that the bill is the first of the f.y. 2012 appropriations bills to be considered on the floor this afternoon. h.r. 2017, this legislation tackles both fiscal discipline and national security. both of critical importance to the american public. with regard to fiscal responsibility, h.r. 2017 provides $40.6 billion in discretionary funding or almost $3 billion or 7% below the request and $1.1 billion or 3% below the fiscal year 2011 level. as for national security, all of our frontline personnel including border patrol agents, c.b.p. officers, i.c.e. agents and coast guard military personnel are funded to sustain their forces and meet mission objectives. obviously we wish we could do more in this legislation but i think this is a very important start, we should move this

process forward. furthermore, this bill, 2017, does not shy away from oversight to ensure the federal government is a good steward of the american public's tax dollars. for instance, the transportation security administration, t.s.a., will be required to cap their full time screeners and generate plan to improve the integration of screening technology and the deployment of its existing work force. having served on the authorizing committee for six years, i very much appreciate this initiative and pay very close attention to these t.s.a. issues over the years. i do believe that this bill we are considering today is timely and specifically targets our nation's security needs and i know we're going to have a robust debate on some of these amendments that can further enhance this legislation. finally i want to thank chairman aderholt for his hard work and his leadership as well as the minority staff. at this time i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. king, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york, the chairman of the

homeland security committee, mr. king, is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from alabama for yielding and let me just say at the outset commend him to for his professionalism and courtesy and also for the effort that he made to preserve to secure the city's program in the homeland security bill. having said that i must oppose the bill in its current form. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, the threat level is the highest in our country since 9/11. that is only increased since the death of osama bin laden. osama bin laden specifically stated, we find in his document, that he wants to attack mass transit, maritime shipping, yet we are reducing mass transit security funding by 50%, we are reducing our port security funding by 50%. we are reducing overall aid for homeland security grants which was the purpose for which the department was created, we're

reducing that by 50%. this, i believe, is putting us at risk. i can speak for instance, for new york. we have five million people, five million passengers every day in our subway system. hundreds of thousands on the commuter lines, yet we're cutting security by 50%. we have 1,000 police officers working on counterterrorism, counting out a federal purpose. doing not what they were doing before september 11 but working entirely on counterterrorism and intelligence. yet their funding will be significantly cut. we have the manhattan security initiative which will provide a camera system of protection in the lower manhattan area and i can go through program after program, every penny, every penny is accounted for. and i would say that, as we go forward, as we look to the future, it's important that cities and governments have some sense of continuity of where the funding will come from as they put their programs in place, to have a 50% cut this year is going to put us at a severe disadvantage and as we do approach the 10th anniversary of

september 11, do we really want to cut our police departments, counterterrorism units, our intelligence units, mass transit security, our port security by 50%? to me this is an invitation to an attack. we cannot put ourselves in that position and because of that, despite my great regard for the chairman, i must owe pose this legislation -- oppose this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. >> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. chairman, i believe we have no further speakers so i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i yield back the balance of my time. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord priority and

recognition to a member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the congressional record, those amendments will be considered read. the clerk will reread. the clerk: the following sums are appropriated for the department of homeland security for fiscal year 2012, namely, title 1, departmental management and operations, office of the secretary and executive management, $ 126,700,000. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the chair: could the gentleman send his amendment to the desk? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. latourette of ohio, page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert -- mr. latourette: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read? the chair: is there objection? without objection the amendment is considered as read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. latourette: i want to

indicate i'm offering this amendment with my friend and neighbor, actually, he's in the office next door, mr. pascrell of new jersey. this deals with fire and safety grant programs. i have nothing but respect for the full committee chairman and subcommittee chairman who have been dealt a bad hand with the 302b allocations as they face the awesome responsibility of funding the programs that defend our country. however, the chair, i think, may remember in the discussion of the continuing resolution in h.r. 1 that there was some discussion about what funding levels were appropriate for fiscal year 2011 for these two grant programs which aid our first responders. in the one iteration of h.r. 1, there was something along the lines of a 70% to 57 -- to 75% reduction from these funds. those funds were restored by

overwhelming votes of the whole body, over 300 members supported mr. pascrell's amendment to put the level back up at $ 20 million for fiscal year 2011, and just shy of 260 members supported mr. price of north carolina's amendment that dealt with how those funds could be utilized and spent. now again, faced with a difficult -- with the difficult decisions that the chairs find themselves in, the average reduction, and this isn't a bill that came to the floor with across the board cults, but the average reduction in -- across the board cuts, but the average reduction in spending is about 14% for the bills being considered. yet these funds have gone from the $820 million to $350 million. which is on the order of about a -- well, 60% reduction. the amendment that i offer with mr. pascrell would transfer

funds out of the office of the secretary and executive management, the office of the undersecretary for management and the office of the chief information officer to restore those funds, not to the $820 million that 300 members of the house indicated should be spent in the last fiscal year but restores them to $670 million, equally divided between the two programs i've indicated. at that level, these funds will still receive a 19% reduction. from fiscal year 2011. and again, citing my great respect for the chairs of the committee on more than one occasion i've heard it remarked that this is a national security bill and there needs to be funding for the national purpose, that we should not be in the business of funding

every local or volunteer fire department in the nation. and i agree with that sentiment. however, i can tell you that faced with amazing budget pressures back in our local community, when the grand river in gainesville, ohio, flooded a couple of years ago, it wasn't fema or the coast guard or the national guard that plucked these folks out of their homes and plucked them out of the river and saved their lives and saved their properties. it was our firefighters and police officers. and so if we make a determination as a congress that we are in the fema business that is emergency management business, an we will provide funds to help rebuild and reshape and fortify and all the other things, then we need to be in all parts of the emergency management business and that includes the first responder portion of that. therefore, i know that we have attempted to come to some

agreement on this amendment to try and get all parties on board, sadly we haven't been able to do that, not for lack of trying on the part of the chairman, but we find ourselves now with this simple amendment that transfers funds from the bureaucracy of the department of homeland security and restores it to our local communities and our first responders. again, mr. chairman, i want to thank mr. pascrell for his co-sponsorship, i urge support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> as i mentioned, i reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment which would slash the funding below what is possible for the nation's security and move funding to grant. mr. aderholt: the committee has already cut the headquarters management at historic levels.

the bill reduces funding for these activities 21% of what the president requested himself this includes we have zeroed out the department's new headquarters in washington, d.c., zeroed out the funding for the data center migration, and we slashed other initiatives we cannot afford at this time. many cuts were unavoidable because of the president's budget request for the department of homeland security was filled with phony offsets. since 9/11, congress has provided $6.7 billion for this program and for the last three years has included a waiver for the cost share requirements with local golvets. given our nation's dire fiscal situation we must take a stand that is not the -- it's not the federal government's job to bail out every municipal budget or serve as fire marshal for every city and town across the nation. in today's physically constrain -- fiscally constrained environment, what we have

included here is a lot of money. while i support the gentleman's intentions, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. do other members seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: i want to thank mr. latourette, as usual, taking on a very, very exquisite subject here and not coming late to the fight. so i'm proud to rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. i want to thank my good friend from ohio. for his leadership and willingness to work across the aisle on this important issue. to those who say that the federal government bears no responsibility about public safety, they are absolutely wrong. on one side of our mouth we say

we must protect and defend our first responders. the other side of our mouth, we say that we have no responsibility whatsoever in talking about our firefighters and police officers. that's why just a short period of time ago, in 2011 c.r., both sides came together the majority of both parties supported putting money back into the budget. we're debating a bill called the department of homeland security appropriations bill. it's an ironic title. this legislation, as written, fails the american people and fails the very people who are on the front lines of our homeland security. it is our firefighters and police officers who will respond to a national tragedy before the federal government. this is what we said in 9/11

and this is what we said in every year since 9/11 and it has not changed. we understand the financial reality this is country faces. i'm prepared to work across the aisle to find common solutions as we did six months ago. but what we cannot afford is to sacrifice our country's security at the altar of spending cuts and that's precisely what the bill as written now does. the fire and safer programs, these programs supported by both democrats an republicans, reached across the lines, across that center aisle that goes down between us, and said, let's work together on the national security of this country. remember, the fire act was written before 9/11 when places in the far west had to push their equipment to a fire. simply put, that's not acceptable in the united states

of america, the greatest country in the world. and when we ask our first responders to be ready to protect us, protect the community, we need to know that they have the resources necessary and as you know, not only in the past several years have our local communities been unable, small and large communities, to have all of those resources at their hands, now it's even more difficult. what you're asking here is a cut of 57% compared to the 2010 and 2011 budget. unacceptable. i support adequate funding for all the agencies. funded in this bill. but we're shortchanging the very people who ran into the burning buildings on september 11. you can't tell me those folks weren't on the front lines that day. i don't believe you if that's

what you're telling me. i know you don't mean that, but then don't say it. the fire act was signed by president clinton before september 11. we're talking about basic equipment needs for our fire departments to protect all of our constituents and hasn't that changed since 9/11? what their responsibilities are, what they need to respond to, is much different than before 9/11. september 11 changed the relationship we have with our first responders. solidified our decision that no longer would this funding be a solely local issue. firefighters and police officers are an integral part of homeland security and ensuring they were well staffed and equipped would be partly a federal responsibility. since then, -- since they were originally offered back -- authorized back in 2000, they have provided nearly $7 billion

for our local fire departments in never every congressional district in in this country. the fact is firefighters rely on this funding for equipment, training, personnel, especially in these tough economic times. independent evaluation of the fire program, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, published by the u.s. fire administration, concluded it was highly effective in improving the readiness and this is the most efficient federal program in the entire federal budget. hear me. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise. the bill before us, more than -- the bill before us more than halves the total amount of funding for firefighter assistance grants compared to

2011 and 2010. if this bill is adopted as written the hiring grants known as safer grants are going to be cut by 63% below 2011 and equivalent grants will be cut by 51%. that is simply unacceptable. these cuts would result in thousands of fewer firefighters on the job. it would leave fewer departments able to maintain safe staffing levels. it would prevent many fire departments from purchasing equipment, purchasing breathing app rat -- apparatus and protecting greer that our firefighters depend on -- gear that our firefighters depend on during a time of emergency. this bipartisan amendment provides $320 million to restore this funding to the president's requested level. mind you, that's still below the 2011 level. but it comes at least to the president's requested level and it would divide the funds

between safer and equipment grants as we've been urged to do by the various fire associations. retaining this funding when local governments are cutting firefighter budgets will help preserve public safety and security. this amendment will help keep thousands of firefighters on the job. and the notion that we're talking here about some kind of federal takeover of local security responsibilities, i think everyone in this chamber knows that that is not an accurate characterization of what's going on here. of course these expenditures are still mainly occurring at the local level. but we're in a world where our fire departments are being asked to equip themselves in new ways, to train themselves in new ways, to meet new kinds of threats and hazards and these fire grants, the personnel grants and the equipment grants have been a critical way of establishing a partnership whereby our local

fire departments can do what they need to do in this new era, when they confront all kinds of new hazards. now, i don't believe the offsets in this amendment are workable at the end of the day. i want to acknowledge that. but the inadequate republican budget allocation combined with the decision to transfer $850 million from first responder grants to disaster relief and to refuse emergency designation for disaster relief leaves my colleague noes good place to cut, no good -- colleagues no good place to cut, no good options to find offsets for these absolutely essential restoring of these grants to firefighters. so i support the amendment. but i work diligently to restore these funding cuts as the bill

progresses and we'll get down at the end of the day, i trust, to responsible budget negotiations with the senate and the white house. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i rise to support the latourette-pascrell amendment and i too recognize the challenges that mr. aderholt and mr. price faced in the confines of trying to address some difficult times. but as a member of the homeland security committee, i believe it is imperative that we look at the reality of the world in which we live. an article dated april 24, 2011, out of the state of texas reads, hundreds of weary firefighters

were racing against the clock on sunday, pushing back massive brushfires that have destroyed near record swatches of texas countryside. firefighters were hoping to make as much progress as possible before low humidity and strong winds set the stage for more potential flare-ups late monday and tuesday. fires are still burning in texas . firefighters are still being called upon. cities and states across america are laying off firefighters and we're reminded of the needs, if you will, that were addressed on 9/11 when firefighters from the city of new york rushed in to save their fellow new yorkers and others and many of them, many of them perished. they are in fact first responders and i believe it is important that we make the sacrifice.

we find the adequate offset and we support this amendment. i'm also reminded of a story that many of you may have heard, it's a sad story, it aired on local television where firefighters from some locality watched while a man drowned and could not save him. the reasoning was that the particular team that would have had the skills and the equipment to save this drowning man in what hap has been called the most powerful -- in what has been called the most powerful nation in the world was fired, laid off, eliminated and therefore from the shoreline, many looked in horror as this particular man drowned. is this what america's come to? i believe this amendment is extremely important. one, to be able to show

appreciation to the firefighters across america who come to the aid of those in need from different states when a crisis or tragedy occurs. i heard someone mention, it might have been mr. latourette, that who is it that flucks you out of a burning house or rescues you when they do have the resources and the team out of a predicament where you are strained -- stranded in some crisis, whether it is drowning, whether it's a fire, whether it is an emergency health condition or whether or not they're confronting a terrorist act, firefighters are truly our first responders. in the city of houston they're considering closing out or shutting down 600-plus police officers and firefighters have the same concerns. so i think it is very important that we own up to our duties and as i mentioned in a metaphor before, let the american people be winners today, let the firefighters be present and accounted for and let us be

reminded of their great heroic acts of 9/11. this 10th year and anniversary, let us not say thank you in the way that we deny them funding but let us say thank you in the way that we provide them with the funding that they need. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i move to strike the last word, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i support this amendment as well, for several reasons. mr. clarke: number one, it's very obvious. our first responders, our firefighters, they're the first there to take care of the public when a natural disaster such as these tornados that have hit our country demolish homes and injure people. but most importantly it's this, our local units of government

right now, they don't have the money to properly equip and staff their firefighters and here's why. their property values that they depend on for their funding, well, they've been diminished because of the foreclosure crisis, a crisis that this congress has failed to effectively address. so there's one duty, however, that we can't turn our back on and that's the safety of the american people. and that's why i urge you, at least partially restore funning for these important firefighter grants and while i may have a problem with the funding source of this amendment, i'll tell you the appropriate way to fund our first responders and firefighters and police officers and emergency medical providers, take a share of the military aid that's going to afghanistan right now. bin laden is gone, we need to reassess our mission in afghanistan and redirect some of that money to protect americans right here at home. let's put some of that money in

the homeland security budget, it's our fire fights that are are our first defense against a terrorist attack. i support this amendment. we have the money, we just need to allocate it right. we've done enough in afghanistan, let's take some of that money and put it right here to protect the american people, support homeland security because the next threat that we likely will get from a terrorist will come from within our borders. let's take care of our people right now. thank you, mr. chair and i -- mr. chair, and i yield my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of the latourette-pascrell amendment to the homeland security appropriations bill, to restore funding for the assistance for firefighters and staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grant programs. mr. altmire: the programs are essential to our public safety and security. these programs improve the readiness of our nation's firefighters, ensuring that the

brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day for the safety of our communities are prepared with the equipment they need to continue protecting and serving our communities safely and effectively. these grants provided by the a.f.g. and safer programs are the single most important source of federal assistance to volunteer fire departments. they help fire departments equip, train and maintain their personnel so they are prepared to respond to all emergencies. these programs are able to address the immediate and individualized needs of fire departments efficiently and effectively because funding is awarded directly to fire departments instead of being funded through other layers of government bureaucracies. as a result of the recent economic downturn and budget constraints at all levels of government, many fire departments have been forced to cut personnel and services, without adequate funding for a.f.g. and safer, thousands of

firefighters could be laid off and communities across the country could be put further at risk. there are more than 150 fire departments in my district alone and each one plays a critical role in keeping local communities safe. many of these fire departments have benefited from a. depmplet g. funding -- a.f.g. funding, some fire departments are just a few of the man that have used the grants to purchase -- of the many that have used grants to purchase new equipment or train additional personnel. just this year berkley hills fire department used an a.f.g. grant to purchase an aerial ladder friar truck that will help the department better -- fire truck that will help the department better protect buildings in the township. another fire volunteer company received a grant last year that allowed the fire company to replace outcated equipment with a new -- outdated equipment with a newportble radio and

defibrillators. these upgrates will not only increase firefighter safety, they will improve the services provided to the communities those fire departments serve. enacting the grants to the a.f.g. and safer programs in the underlying legislation will only make it harder for fire departments to avoid layoffs and protect our communities. by adequately funding a.f.g. and safer programs, we can help volunteer fire departments nationwide obtain the equipment and personnel they need to effectively respond to emergencies. according to the international association of firefighters, over 1,600 firefighters could lose their jobs as a result of the funding cuts that are in this bill. i urge all members to support firefighters in their districts and vote in favor of increased funding for firefighters and support the amendment of mr. latourette and mr. pascrell and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to

strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the latourette and pascrell amendment, to restore funding for fire and safer grants. ms. richardson: i'd like to thank congressman latourette and congressman pascrell for offering this amendment which enjoys bipartisan support which i strongly support. the yawn slot of natural disasters that we have seen across the country have shown that the neeled for first responders has increased, not decreased. many of us have been strong advocates for this program and recognize the inherent value of making sure our nation's first responders have the people and the equipment that they need in order to ensure our safety in all of our local communities. i support these programs. why? because they work. after an independent evaluation of the fire grant program was implemented by the department of agriculture, it concluded, it concluded that the department of agriculture, that this program was highly effective in

improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the nation. additionally, at a time when many local, state -- when many local and state governments have been forced to make drastic cuts to their emergency staff and personnel, the safer program has been the only resource fire departments have had to ensure that their communities would be ready if they needed to respond. in the appropriations committee report, it mentions that fema should maintain all hazards focus in order to ensure that fema concentrates its efforts on where it is needed most. i strongly agree with this sentiment, which is why i think this amendment is critical to achieving our goals. as representative of the 37th congressional district and ranking member of the subcommittee on preparedness and response, i understand the importance of having a fully staffened a -- staffed and equipped fire department.

24e san miguel fire the worst fire in california's history, burned through 900 acres of land and cost billions of dollars, however this grant program made sure no lives were lost. unfortunately, fires are not something we can always plan ahead for, we have to respond, do the rescue and then the recovery. it's important that this amendment be found in order to eliminate the burden that firefighters feel in having to do more on what of the do -- what they can't do with less. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. the gentleman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. page 2, after the dollar amount -- mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to su spend the reading of the amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment will be consider canned as read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

mr. cicilline: this amendment is offered by myself and others. it will authorize funding for state and local grants for the urban initiatives. this bill makes dangerous cuts to the urban areas security initiatives, the uasi program a program critical to security of i cities deemed at high risk of attack. one of those cities is providence, rhode island, in my congressional district, along with 50 other cities. just last year, providence was one of 54 cities identified as being most at-risk of being targeted by terrorists. as a result the city of providence and other communities have received critical federal funding under uasi to support efforts to prevent and respond to

terrorist attacks and other emergencies. as a result of this, providence also became the first city in america to have an accredited emergency management and homeland security department. however, the cut pross posed in this legislation will cripple the ability of cities to effectively ensure proper safety, should an attack occur. the elimination of these uasi funds mean staff won't be able to maintain critical training or purchase equipment necessary to be prepared. thousands of dwiteses -- devices like security cameras, radio, prompts such as port sirens and water craft won't be maintained. emergency operation centers won't able to be constructed or maintained. these are urgent priorities for our cities. we cannot in good conscience spend billion protecting people all over the world at the expense of our own security. i urge members to adopt this

amendment. i yield back. -- i yield to my colleague from rhode island, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island, the author of the amendment, must remain on his feet during the yielding of time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to echo his sentiments. i rise in support of my joint amendment with congressman cicilline to restore $337 million to the urban areas security initiatives grant program which would fund the program at the f.y. 2010 level. the funds support response efforts across southern new england. a level 1 trauma center and the port of providence are also critical assets. these are in jeopardy due to cuts to the urban area security initiatives in this bill.

they were designed to make sure that densely populated areas were adequately funded and protected. because of the cuts in this program, this is an example of what i believe are an irresponsible and arbitrary approach to budget cutting that jeopardizes safety throughout the region in case of an attack or natural disaster. i applaud my colleague and look forward to working with him, i urge my colleagues to support the cicilline-langevin amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. cicilline: i yield to mr. ellison for a request. mr. ellison: ski unanimous consent to put a statement in the record in support of the amendment. the chair: without objection the statement will appear in the record. mr. cicilline: and i yield a minute to the gentlelady from north carolina. the chair: the -- the gentlewoman from california.

the chair: the gentleman must remain on his feet. ms. hirono: if the gentleman -- the gentleman -- i move to strike the last word. the chair: if the gentleman will yield back his time. mr. cicilline: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: the move before us today was born out of need for reform. it provides for the secretary, it provides for requirements for spending languishing dollars. it provides $1.7 billion for homeland security first responder grants. however, as we are all aware, not all programs are funded at the previous year's level. the consolidation in this bill forces the secretary to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they

are most needed, whether it is port, whether it's rail, surveillance or access projects or whether it's high-risk urban areas or to states as opposed to reverse engineering prompts to fill the amount designated for one of the many programs. additionally, as noted by the gentleman from rhode island, the bill limits the urban areas security initiative grants to the top highest -- 10 highest cities. again, this puts scarce dollars where they're most needed this does not mean lower risk cities will lose all funding. it will just mean the funds will come from other programs such as homeland security grants that are at risk and formula based. these -- that are risk and formula based. these cuts will not be ease you but they are long overdue and necessary to address out of control federal spending. furthermore, the offset proposed by the gentleman is unacceptable. a reduction to the infrastructure and technology account would, number one,

impact operation and main nance on the border fence. number two, reduce investments in critical border security communications, and third, affect the border patrol's ability to procure proven technologies to increase border security immediately. i urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline around i urge a no vote on this eafment the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina, the ranking member of the subcommittee rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> let me state it very plainly. we need to increase funding for urban area security grants to a minimum of the 2011 level of $725 million. i offered amendments in full committee and asked for a waiver from the rules committee in order to do just that. mr. price: now the majority has taken over $2.2 billion in

these grant programs, has consolidated them into a block grant of $1 billion. if you take that $1 billion, that includes all these state and local grants and then reduce that for the statutory carve outs, and then you reduce it again, assuming the minimum statutory funding for the states, what's going to be left? there's going to be only half a million dollars left for uasi, if ports, for rail, for transit and for other grants altogether -- all together. this is simply not enough. up fortunately, the proposed offset is also unacceptable. this bill just like the 2011 final c.r. greatly reduced border security. fencing. infrastructure and technology projects to secure our borders. while some of this reduction is due to a termination of the

s.b.i. net contract, this proposed cut would prevent c.b.p. from acquiring off the shelf tech nothing for border patrol on the southwest border system of the offset would be indeed a damaging reduction. but this simply illustrates the impossible dilemma posed by this bill. the root problem is an inadequate allocation and it's compounded by the refusal to call an emergency an emergency. so i commend the gentleman from rhode island for his initiative to address the dangerous gap left by the minority's bill when it comes to protecting the nation's urban areas. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. hirono: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

ms. hirono: i rise in support of this amendment. the intention of the amendment is to restore funding to the urban area security initiative, uasi. in my district of sacramento, california -- ms. matsui: giving law enforcement and first responders the tools and training to protect our community. sacramento is the capital of california, the most populous state in the union and the seventh largest economy in the world. it is critical to continue to support the anti-terrorist work being done there and it is unaccept to believe leave this region without appropriate funds for protection. with potential targets like the full some dam which is -- like the folsom dam which is upstream from the city of san francisco, key transportation systems and numerous state and city facilities, the uasi

grants provides protection and cooperation among local, state and federal levels. not receiving the funds would devastate one of the nation east most efficient readiness task forces, located in the former air force base at my district this facility creates greater collaboration an communication among state and federal law enforcement an first responders. mr. chairman this amendment will bolster our nation's security by giving our communities the tools and training necessary to keep us safe. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the ayes have it. mr. cicilline: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to -- pursuant to --

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 -- mr. cicilline: i withdraw the request. the chair: the gentleman withdraws the question. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i o-- mr. aderholt: i oppose the amendment. the chair: the chair just put the vote to the house. does the gentleman request a rodded vote? mr. aderholt: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. royce, rise. mr. royce: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment you were in 2, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. royce of california. the chair: the gentleman from california. the gentleman is recognized for