on what a person on food stamps lives on. that is is $4.50 a day, and that's $1.50 a meal. so i hope you join us in that effort, my colleagues. experience is often the best teacher. and i bet that even a few days on living on what a person on food stamps survives on day in and day out might just bring us together to work to address the crisis of poverty. we know what we need to do, really, the pathway to addressing the crisis of poverty to boosting our stagnating economy and reducing long-term deficits is the same one, create stable, living-wage jobs. . the most effective anti-poverty program is an effective jobs program. when they can get good benefits, the family stops relying on government services

and that family begins to pay into the tax base instead of drawing from it. when jobs are created it boosts demand which helps to create even more jobs which is what tax cuts for the wealthy quite frankly have always failed to accomplish. so we must come together and pass the president's american jobs act and support those initiatives that create stable, living-wage jobs. but while we work to create new jobs, we cannot forget that there are millions of americans who are our most vulnerable. there are millions who face hunger, millions who have been looking for a job for more than 99 weeks, and millions of americans who are losing their homes and struggling to keep their vision of the american dream alive. we must protect the vital safety net programs that support these people in these very hard times from the draconian and shortsighted budget cuts by the so-called

supercommittee. we cannot balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable. poverty is real. it's rural, it's urban, people of all backgrounds, all ethnic backgrounds are poor in our country. and so i hope we can finally, at least on this issue, end the extreme partisanship and stand united in a bipartisan way and as a nation to create jobs and to address the crisis of poverty ravaging our nation. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, 40 years from now a beloved high school history teacher at tahoe high school named garrett fant should be celebrating his retirement celebrated by

generations of his students and children and grandchildren. they would have all told affectionate story of how mr. fant inspired him and wished him a happy and well-deserved retirement. unfortunately history has willed a different story. army specialist garrett fant instead returned to south lake tahoe last week as a fallen hero at the age of 21. this young man sacrificed all those years, all those memories, all those pleasures, all that life in the service of his country. he loved the army and he had a plan for his life. he'd serve his country as a soldier for 20 years and then he'd come home and serve his community as a high school history teacher. from everything i learned about garrett fant he would have made a great history teacher. his more told a reporter that his thought was that high school was the last stop for kids and he wanted to influence

people. he'd made a great family man. his older brother remembers looking up to garrett as if garrett were the older brother. knowing full well the dangers that surrounded him in afghanistan, his foremost attention went to reassuring his family that he was safe and secure. his mother said, he always tried to protect me from the dangers of being over there. he was just someone if you were his family or friends or country he gave you his all and loved you with everything. above all, garrett fant wanted to be a soldier. his brother tried to get him to enlist with him in the navy but garrett would have none of that. he was all-army and had known from the time he was a little boy that was the most he wanted to do. on facebook he listed his occupation as grunt and telling his friends, you can't spell infantry without fant. he was a top marksman in his

class of 1,000. i wish i had known him. i wish my grandchildren might one day had been his high school history students. instead army specialist garrett fant his his place in history, among the generations of heroes who sacrificed all those precious years to protect those who couldn't protect themselves, to stand up to the bullies of the world, to proclaim liberty throughout the land and through the inhabitants. one with searing insight observed, their story is known to all of you. it is the story of the american man at arms. my estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years. i regarded him thaw and i regard him now as one of the

world's noblist figures. not only one of the finest military characters but also was one of the most stainless. his name and fame are the birthright of every american citizen and his youth and strength, his love and loyalty he gave all that mortality can give. he needs no eulogy from me or from any other man. and mcarthur goes on to say, but when i think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire and of his modesty in victory, i'm filled with an emotion of admiration i cannot put into words. he belonged to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of exceptional patriotism. he belongs to prosperity as the instructor of future generations and the principles of liberty and freedom. and so garrett fant became a teacher after all. as shakespeare said, his story

shall the good man teach his son. succeeding generations of students at south lake tahoe high school and also valley oaks high school will know his story. every memorial day in his hometown his name will be read with a special pride that his friends and neighbors will share. strangers will pass by his honored grave adorned with flags and flowers and they'll note the few years he had and the sacrifice he made and be humbled by it and perhaps inspired by it to become better citizens. no history teacher can do more than that. to his grieving family on behalf of a grateful nation, i can only say that you do not mourn alone. your pride in garrett is shared by your community, by your country and by many, many history teachers who will tell his story to the latest american generation. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. mr. butterfield: let me thank the speaker for yielding time to me this morning. as i begin my remarks, mr. speaker, i just want to make a brief remark about one of the preceding speakers, congressman barbara lee, from oakland, california, who has been an advocate for poverty and food insecurity and human rights and all of the global issues that we have talked about over the years and i want to thank her for her leadership on this very important issue. congresswoman lee is the founder of the out-of-poverty caucus here in the house of representatives and i'm honored to serve as one of her co-chairs. but the congresswoman is absolutely correct. on this sunday, october 16, we

will celebrate world food day, a day to increase awareness, understanding and information and inform year-round action to alleviate hunger across the globe in our neighborhoods. the statistical evidence of pervasive and persistent hunger is absolutely staggering. notwithstanding the human stories of working families and in my communities in eastern north carolina or families in eastern africa who cannot get enough food to eat on a daily basis. and so i want to take this opportunity to remind all the members of this body that millions of americans, millions of people suffer from hunger and unless we commit to eliminating this, these human beings will suffer persistent poverty, reduce rights and even death. we must come together.

we must come together, mr. speaker, to make hunger and nutrition issues -- these issues a priority. it is a priority in my hometown of wilson, north carolina. we have a food bank in my community that's administered by the wilson opportunities industrialization center and on at least four occasions each year this center is responsible for passing out food to those suffering from food insecurity. and i have here to my right simply a picture of the last food program in which citizens of our community lined up all night long to receive food in this community. you will see this building. it is a former school. actually, i went to elementary school many years ago. this was my first grade classroom, congresswoman lee.

but this is a former elementary school. it's now the wilson o.i.c. and citizens lined up all night long in order to receive food from this program. what a shame, but thank you, o.i.c., for your effort. 925 million people suffer from chronic hunger worldwide. one in seven people, that is an atrocious statistic. shockingly in 2011 there is still severe starvation. the worst drought in 60 years caused widespread hunger and starvation across the horn of africa, and we need to pay attention to the horn of africa. globally 12 million people are in danger of starving to death and children are especially vulnerable. in the united states, the richest country in the world, the richest country that we have ever known, in our beloved country 48 million people live

in food insecure households, and these are yet examples of that. that's one in six people in our country who suffer from food insecurity. the recession that we talk about on this floor every day has exacerbated the plight of many, but problems with food security began well before 2007. the number of people classified by usda of having low food security has doubled. my district has been recently classified as the second most insecure district in the country. the federal government certainly needs to find ways to cut costs and reduce spending, but that burden should not fall heavyiest on the people with the greatest needs. -- heaviest on the people with the greatest needs. we need to empower scientifics to develop more efficient and sustainable methods of

production. we should maintain and improve our commitments to foreign aid programs through usaid and improving them to provide greater access to needed resources. finally, mr. speaker, my predecessor in this office, former congresswoman eva clayton, was a strong, clear voice on behalf of the hungry of the country and those abroad. during her 10 years in congress she was staunchly committed to improving access and quality of food staffs, w.i.c. and other programs. following her retirement, she was appointed assistant director of the u.n. food and agriculture organization. we will be introducing legislation probably tomorrow to honor the work of eva clayton, the eva clayton fellows program act of 2011. this is a wonderful program. i urge my colleagues to pay attention to the introduction of this bill. it will be significant. thank you. i've run out of time. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shilling, for five minutes. mr. schilling: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. schilling: in support of american workers and as an advocate for those to provide economic certainty for the businesses that create jobs in this country. last night, mr. speaker, the house voted on bipartisan trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. these agreements represent an opportunity to compete, grow jobs and promote american exports. here's what we know, mr. speaker. 95% of the world's customers live outside this great country. here is another thing, mr. speaker. if america gives itself the opportunity to compete with

other countries, like these three agreements will, american manufacturing and farmers will deliver and we will all win. job creation is red, white and blue. it's definitely a red, white and blue issue, and that is why you saw both democrats and republicans coming together yesterday to provide opportunity for american exports to compete. in the 17th district of illinois in which i represent i recently visited a company that makes the big mining trucks. . 08% of those trucks ship outside the united states of america. this company employs 3,000 workers which is equal to supplying jobs to 2,400 of those. these jobs are dependent upon exports, the same company also manufactures bulldozers, eight out of 10 of those are sold to buyers from overseas. yet again this is an example of jobs being created because of the demand for american products

by customers in a global economy. these trade agreements will reduce tariffs on goods and remove barriers currently in place. by leveling the playing field for our manufacturers and farmers, we can further promote these corner stones of the american economy. we need enact these policies that strengthen our manufacturing base which is why i am co-sponsoring legislation offered by my colleague and friend, dan lipinski, which will pave the way for our national manufacturing strategy. three million manufacturing jobs and almost four million ag jobs are dependent upon u.s. exports. the independent u.s. international trade commission estimates that these agreements will increase american made exports by $13 billion and inject $10 billion to our g.d.p. president obama estimates that these jobs could create a quarter of a million jobs. according to the congressional research service, the last time

the united states signed a trade agreement was back in 2006 with peru. these three trade agreements the house passed last night could have been sent to congress back in 2009. every day we delay is a day we deny american workers job opportunities to compete. these trade agreements aren't about rhetoric, they are about results. we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines anymore while other countries enter into trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea causing us to lose more of the market share. again i support these free trade agreements if as a country we are allowed to compete, i know we will deliver. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz, for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the achievements of marcia jo,

founder, executive director and chief curator of the jewish museum of florida. marcia has been a leader in the organized florida jewish community for more than 30 years. originally from west virginia she's been a leader in jewish organizations since her work during college years. since the 1970's, she has held various leadership roles with an organization such as israel bonds, apack, and hadassah. throughout her lifetime, marcia has broken the class ceiling as the first woman in many positions, including as president of the greater orlando organization, she was also the first woman to chair the florida association of jewish federations conversation in 1979. in 1993 marcia guided the restoration of an abandoned 1936 art deco building on miami beach that served as an orthodox synagogue for 50 years and opened the jewish museum of florida in 1995. she led the effort to ged the

museum accredited. the museum was among the national register of historic places, collects, preserves, and interprets the jewish experience in florida since at least 1763 when jews were first allowed to live in the state. in 2003, she initiated state legislation for a florida jewish history month which is now recognized each january. and in 2005, marcia and members of miami's jewish community approached me with the idea to designate a month to honor the contributions american jews have made to our nation. as a result, i was the proud sponsor of the jewish american heritage month resolution which the house and senate unanimously passed in 2006 and have been proclaimed by president bush and president obama annually since then. marcia should take great pride in knowing jewish american heritage month, now celebrated across our nation each may, began with her work at the jewish museum of florida. i am honored to recognize marcia for the positive impact he shoo

has made not just on florida's jewish community but on communities across our nation. i wish her well on her retirement and thank her for enriching the lives of countless others in the jewish community and around the country. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor a second time as i promised a couple weeks ago to talk about high level nuclear waste and the yucca mountain repository. two weeks ago i highlighted han ford, washington, a d.o.e. site that has 53 million gallons of nuclear waste. 53 million gallons of nuclear waste stored 10 feet under ground in hanks that are leaking . the waste of 250 feet above the

water table. and the waste is one mile from the columbia river. versus federal law which said in 1982 that yucca mountain should be our national repository. let's look at yucca mountain. right now there's no nuclear waste on site. the waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground. the waste is 1,000 feet above the water table. and the waste would be 100 miles from the colorado river. 8 -- 100 miles versus one mile. high level huke march waste, especially with hanford where you have nuclear waste leaking outside the tanks. so then my response was where are the senators in these two states doing and what's their position? because the reason why we are not moving to yucca mountain is because because of one u.s. senator, the majority leader of the senate, harry reid, who has blocked the movement of yucca mountain.

obviously these senators have an interest because of the columbia river, and i was trying to encourage them through the use of the bully pulpit that this was a time to move to get this resolution resolved, especially after fukea shays-meehana -- fubey shays-meehana -- fuchishima and others. since then i have been able to get a few quotes from the senators or research them, senator cantwell said, the national academy of sciences has concluded the best approach is to bury nuclear waste deep under ground since that conclusion yucca mountain in nevada has been chosen as a -- the national repository. senator murray said this, i believe that is irresponsible for the department of energy to discontinue the yucca program altogether. its funding, licensing, and design. senator wyden has said, i don't

see that yucca mountain will reopen. i think that there will be an effort to look at new technology on site storage and a of approaches but i don't think that's going to happen. so senator wyden is accepting this. in hanford, a mile from the columbia river. senator merkley has been quiet as far as we could find from the google search pairing his name and any yucca mountain comments. lest people think i'm picking on the northwest, let me go to my home state of illinois. so, one facility, zion nuclear power plant, demissioned plancht, -- plant, but there's still 65 casks containing 1,135 metric tons of nuclear waste. the waste at scion is stored above the ground. the waste at yucca mountain would be 1,000 feet below the

surface. the waste at zion is five feet above the water table. the waste at yucca mountain would be 1,000 feet. the waste at yucca mountain is 100 miles from the colorado river. the waste from zion is 1,300 feet from lake michigan. i mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that yucca mountain is safer than storing high level nuclear waste next to lake michigan. so what is -- what do our senators say? well, senator -- let's start with senator durbin. he's quoted as saying, there are a lot of options out there, but i have supported yucca in the past and i'm not talking away from that. i just think we need to consider other options as well. i want him to obviously continue to consider yucca mountain. senator kirk as said, i think in

the end congress needs to fight and win the battle to build the yucca mountain facility so that we can store nuclear waste 1,000 feet below the surface. i agree. senator kohl is quoted as saying, this site on the nevada nuclear test site, that's what people don't know, is that yucca mountain is also the nuclear -- the nevada nuclear testify site. that's where we tested the nuclear bombs during the nuclear arms race and the nuclear age. so senator kohl is correct in saying this site on the nevada nuclear test site is certainly safer than leaving the waste at 132 sites nationwide. sites scattered around the country that were never designed to be a permanent solution. senator johnson is silent. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly, for five minutes. mr. donnelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to applaud the

bipartisan majority in the senate for passing legislation to take on currency manipulators and to urge our house of representatives and our house republican leadership to do the same. to allow a stand up, up or down vote, on currency manipulation legislation here in the house of representatives. in a period of congressional gridlock, we must seize every bipartisan opportunity available to us not only to create jobs but also to protect the good-paying jobs we already have. as the senate demonstrated this week by passing the currency exchange rate oversight reform act, the time is now to take advantage of bipartisan cooperation. 16 republican senators joined 47 democratic senators in voting for this legislation to counter an unfair trade practice that is

hampering our economic recovery. in february, congressman sander levin, tim ryan, and tim murphy introduced the currency reform for fair trade act. h.r. 639 has garnered 225 bipartisan co-sponsors, more than enoughle to secure house passage. this would allow the department of commerce to counter imports made cheaper by currency manipulation with a corresponding tariff. a nearly identical bill passed the house of representatives last year by a strong, overwhelming bipartisan vote of 348-79. both republicans and democrats. when countries are allowed to keep the value of their currencies artificially low, and in turn the prices of their exports into the united states, american companies and american workers face an unfair disadvantage.

forced to compete on an unlevel playing field where competitors are able to maintain a permanent 30% to 40% off sale on their products. american jobs are lost and our trade deficit grows with countries like china. the economic policy institute recently released a study and it showed that in the last 10 years the u.s. lost 2.8 million jobs, including nearly 62,000 jobs in my home state of indiana. as a result directly of the expanding trade deficit with china. many experts agree countries like china that manipulate their currencies are damaging the u.s. economy. fed chairman ben bernanke recently expressed concern that the chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a more normal recovery process in the global economy. and he stated, it is to some

extent hurting the united states recovery. chairman bernanke is tasked directly with the responsibility of serving and protecting america's economic interests. he recognizes the impact that chinese currency manipulation is having on our economy. it is long past time for this house of representatives to do the same. after the senate expressed interest in considering s. 1619, china immediately went on the offensive issuing threats and saying such legislation could spark a trade war. though china's comments are disappointing, they are not unexpected. and congress should not shy away from doing what is in america's best interest. that is our job. china's unfair currency policies have cost millions of americans their jobs. and i believe inaction on this issue is dangerous to our

economic recovery and continues to put at risk hundreds of thousands of additional american jobs. when i travel around my district, i hear from small businesses and manufacturers on this issue. and they never ask for congress to guarantee their success. all they want is a fair fight for the rules to be the same, and i believe given a level playing field, american businesses will win every single time. . once again, to our house leadership, please allow bipartisan legislation addressing currency manipulation to come before the full house of representatives for a stand-alone up or down vote. who are you going to stand with, the chinese government or american businesses and american workers? the american people want a vote now and deserve a vote now.

thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, for five minutes. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are now more than 275 days into this is 12 -- into this 112th congress and the g.o.p. leadership has put forward zero, zero american jobs bill, an outright rejected consideration of president obama's job proposal. so if jobs aren't at the heart of the american tea party's agenda, what is? passage of anti-labor legislation, to weaken the rights of middle-class workers and encourage the shipping of jobs overseas, check. passage of anti-labor legislation, to raise taxes on

hardworking families, check. passage of anti-environment legislation to roll back clean air standards, check. passage of anti-education legislation to slash pell grants for middle-income students to afford college, check. and later today, passage of its seventh, seventh anti-woman's health measures. today's bill will put the government in the middle of americans' health choices and allow hospital to refuse life-saving treatment to women. mr. speaker, every day it feels more and more like the movie "groundhog day" in here. i wake up hoping there will be something different but it's the same scene played over and over and over. the republican tea party agenda stuck on repeat might satisfy

the extreme right wing, but it neither satisfies nor helps hardworking americans. it is time for the g.o.p. leadership to learn a lesson from "groundhog day," the only way out of it is to do better. the american people don't want token legislation, extreme partisanship or side show politics. they want real solutions, real jobs and a real vision. they want a vision for america. a vision for america. and like the movie, they are desperate for a new day. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, for five minutes. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the national trust for historic

preservation's 65th national preservation conference which will be held in my community of western new york next week. over 200,000 people from across -- over 200,000 people from across the country and around the world will converge on buffalo to be immersed in our considerable architecture. what makes this unique is our national historic preservation assets is the reason that the conference is being held there. the centerpiece will be the numerous buildings, homes, parks, neighborhoods that were remarkable upon their construction and will help grow us in the future. this conference will provide international validation to what many in western new york have long known and understood, that our ability thrives lies in recapturing the potential on what we have built in the past and we are doing just that. buffalo is home to the nation's first park and parkway system, designed in the 19th century by

the famed landscape architect, frederick homestead, where 25 acre park lands are one of the best in the world. the conservatory is leading a multimillion dollar effort to restore the parks so western new yorkers can visit and can appreciate and enjoy them for decades to come. meanwhile, we are meticulously restoring building integral to our architectural history. it is one by frank lloyd wright. lewis sullivan. the hotel lafayette by one of america's first female architects, louise blanchard bethune. these efforts are not just examples of historic preservation. they represent a new confidence that we can take charge of our own future by reclaiming our past. mr. speaker, historic preservation efforts in buffalo and western new york also

demonstrate the importance of partnerships between the federal government and the private sector. without these partnerships, many preservation projects would never get off the ground. federal tools like the historic preservation tax credit and the new markets tax credit brings builders, investors, development professionals together and they have the capacity to turn around entire community. in buffalo 64 million dollars of new market tax credits investment have occurred since 2005. this investment has leveraged projects totaling over $141 million in our community. the new markets program has encouraged the redevelopment of the oak school lofts, the electric tower, the webb lofts, asbury hall, 567 exchange street, the larkin exchange complex, the erie-lackawanna train station in jamestown and the innovation center at the

buffalo-niagara medical campus. they either involve a restoration of an historic, vacant building or new construction in an economically distressed area. mr. speaker, i support legislation that would extend the new market tax program and authorize it at $5 billion or more a year, and i support extending the historic preservation tax credit because i have seen in buffalo how cost-effective and successful this program can be. older industrial areas like buffalo will be able to compete and succeed in a globalized economy if their leaders develop a culture of innovation and create new economic opportunities while taking advantage of the unique assets of the past. buffalo and western new york are ready to meet that challenge. i congratulate those who have led this effort to host this important conference, especially bob skirker and kathleen schweitzer and the hundreds of western new yorkers that will make this conference a success. to the conference attendees and visitors from all around the world, i would say our

community is honored to host you and proud to show off or unique architecture and historic assets. i promise you will not be disappointed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: good morning, mr. speaker. thank you very much for yielding to me this morning. i wanted to share with my colleagues an important challenge that we have, and i think some would say how obvious with the 9% unemployment which i think we should be honest with ourselves and realize that it has been an accident that has been long in coming. almost as if one slowed down on a-run day and -- on a rainy day

and looked as one was following the rules of the road and decided to in a moment's notice not only speed but speed through a stop sign. an accident waiting to happen. we have, of course, had a spending without accountability in two wars, iraq and afghanistan, preceding this administration and, of course, tax cuts for the top 1% of the population, many of whom who acknowledge where there is opportunity and benefit there must be sacrifice and contribution. and if we were to engage them in a reasoned discussion, we would find out, of course, that they would be willing to invest in america. i don't call it taxation. none of us enjoy getting that bill that deals with taxes, but we do understand the value of investing in america. yesterday, we debated three trade bills, all of them are my

friends. i have had the opportunity to engage with the communities represented by south korea, panama and colombia. let me say particularly on panama, my grandfather worked on the panama canal and the evidence is not his words to me since he died before i was born but it is the evidence of his name being printed in the anals of the history of the panamanian canal on the site when i visited on many occasions. what an emotion to see his name as one who helped construct and build in the 1900's amongst all the devastation, mosquitos and disease, he survived and helped build the panama canal. so we have a long-standing relationship with him. we have a long standing relationship -- long-standing relationship with the canal.

the trade bills have a question. will it have an exin fusion of opportunity for those who have lost their jobs? unlike some comments by presidential candidates running for this job, i don't believe if you're unemployed and if you are not rich it is your fault. there are college graduates who are unemployed today. there are skilled art sans and those who are -- artisans and those who are in the trade who are unemployed. there are veterans who led multinational companies in iraq and afghanistan -- how do i know? because i have visited them and seen them in operation. if you are over lodge skls and moving men and women and 25 years old i can assure you know how to work in large corporation. there's no evidence that these bills being passed at this time will in fact bring down the unemployment. i believe our chief

responsibility is to find work for the american people. one of the challenges of the language of the trade bill is the question of protecting our intellectual property. intellectual property creates jobs. it protects the genius of america and, of course, all of us in our history books have known about the originalins of the telephone and we know the originalins of the light bulb, if you will, with some of the geniuses that we've known in our early history. many of us have heard of george washington car very who did a lot with the -- carver who did a lot with the peanut. americans know how to invent. i have the privilege of having in my district the texas medical center where some of the most outstanding research is being done on cancer. what seems to be an epidemic in this country. so i argue that we did not have sufficient protections for intellectual property. but here is a key. in addition to not having a direct correlation and an

oversight on the passage of these bills which passed in the senate last night and the correlation of creating jobs that our population, our citizens, those that we are here to protect, those who are here to create a pathway of economic opportunity would have a nexus of jobs. that's what you need to prove to me. i believe we are missing a manufacturing strategy. it's interesting that we consider that old stuff. how proud we are of the model t. i believe we cannot go forward on trade bills, mr. speaker, until we focus on manufacturing in america, make it in america, putting people back to work of all levels of education. that's going to be my cause for now, forever and ever. i want america back to work. it's a great nation. the greatest country in the world. let us focus on our folks getting jobs and getting our folks back to manufacturing, making things, selling things and america continues to serve this world as the greatest

democracy and greatest country in the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until from covering abortion services. after a procedural vote on that bill, the house will recess to get ready for an address by south korean president, lee myung-bak at 4:00 eastern. we will have live coverage here on c-span. our coverage of today's visit by the south korean president continues at 6:30 eastern as president obama and the first lady host a state dinner. we begin with the arrival of the dignitaries and other guests and later the toast by president obama and lee. you can see live coverage on

c-span3. >> remarks from house minority leader nancy pelosi who is holding her weekly legislative briefing. this began just a couple moments ago. >> it's about creating jobs as the centerpiece how we create growth that would bring revenue to the treasury to reduce the deficit. it's about innovation and hear your three proposals to grow small businesses to do just that. three proposals on how we can find revenue and how we can reduce costs. very proud of the work of our members. the -- as we do this, as we go forward, i think it's very important to subject some of the suggestions to -- and it remains to be seen what the republicans will be submitting. we hope it can be bipartisan and in a couple of cases they

will be. they are not yet in this package, but they will be by tomorrow. the -- and that will be agriculture and our veterans' committee. we hope they will have bipartisan proposals. what we're calling for from the committee are open hearings. we want open hearings. rule 5 of their rules talked about transparency. so we want to honor their rules by having much more transparency in the proceeding. we're calling upon the supercommittee and the co-chairs to have open hearings with the domenici proposal. on the simpson-bowles proposal and the gang of six. we think that they provide a good pathway, a good framework for deficit reduction, economic growth and can be a good place for us to start. i just want to add this.

if we pass a bill to add the full faith and credit of our country, $1.2 trillion were cut. the bill also called for an additional $1.2 trillion to be cut. with interest that takes us to about $2.5 trillion. so that is going to happen. it will either happen by the work of this committee or it will happen by sequestration. i hope it will happen before the work of this committee and we hope it will go farther than that to go to $4 trillion. big, bold, balanced. and so in the interest of achieving that, we want to have as much transparency as possible. we had excellent proposals from our members, and here is how we can go forward. i'm proud we are joined by our

democratic whip, steny hoyer. mr. john larson. and our champion on small business in the house, chairwoman nydia velazquez. steny, as you know, has championed make it in america. he's been a deficit hawk. he's here to talk to us about that. >> thank you very much, madam leader. big, bold and balanced, i hope that's the committee is focused on what we call the select committee on deficit reduction or affectionately known as the supercommittee. it's a supercommittee that has been given extraordinary powers to come up with things to be considered and 51 members of the senate can pass it. if a majority of the senate agrees it will pass. a majority of the house agrees it will pass and go to the president. i am hopeful that they will be successful. failure ought not to be an option. this is absolutely critical in

my opinion, for the fiscal health of economy and for the economy of america and to restore america's confidence in our ability to face tough issues successfully. it will also in my opinion restore the confidence of the international community in america's ability to manage its finances and to lead as the world surely wants us to do. the joint select committee has the responsibility to set us on a course that will both make significant progress on our debt and speed our economic recovery. in the bowles-simpson report and the domenici-rivlin report and in the gang of six proposal, they all spoke to the necessity to grow the economy and to balance the budget. not one or the other. they recognize that one without the other will not work. we need to create jobs now. we need to increase revenue

stream because we have people working. not because we raise taxes, but because we have people working. it's immediate focus. maybe reining in the devers. it being the committee but the affects on the committee's recommendations will be felt across the economy. the most important thing, i believe, is the committee have a real chance to succeed and to reach compromise. we're all working towards that end. that's why the letters from our ranking members fought committee reflects the need to help the -- from the committee reflects the need to help to reduce the deficit over the longer term. house democrats wants the committee's recommendations for, as again as our leader said, big and bold and balanced. and we want to make sure they are balanced with the investments we need to grow jobs and strengthen our competitiveness. our make it in america plan includes many such vefments that can help -- investments that can help create jobs and lay the groundwork for future

growth. i believe it's important for the committee's recommendations to guarantee that all americans, each and every one of us are paying our fair share and contributing together. we cannot afford to place the burden of deficit reduction only on the backs of working families and certainly not on the most vulnerable in our country. i join leader pelosi in congratulating our ranking members and, yes, those who are working in a bipartisan way to say that we can address our deficits and our debt and grow jobs in our economy at the same time. indeed, if we don't do both we will not succeed. i'm now pleased to yield to the chairman of our caucus who has been such, as the leader pointed out, vigorous, focused, effective advocate of growing our economy and focusing on jobs, john larson of

connecticut. >> thanks, steny. we do that by making it in america, of course. >> amen, brother. >> amen. let me underscore what our two leaders have said with the effort put forward by the members of our caucus. i think it's -- it reflects our desire to put the country back to work and the consistent theme in everything that they have said is that job creation equals deficit reduction. job creation does equal deficit reduction. the c.b.o. has said so clearly. there's no other single item or silver bullet that reduces the deficit by a third other than the creation of a job. what we witnessed across america in the last several weeks are our citizens taking to the streets, borne out of

frustration but borne primarily out of the desire to see their government respond to the simple dignity that comes from a job. the opportunity to look across the table at your spouse and children and family and let them know that they are secure, not only the fact that you have a job but secure, again, in their aspirations and in their dreams for this great country of ours. as the leader has said, we have an unbelievable opportunity as witnessed by the enthusiasm by the people in our caucus and we dare say i believe members of the other side of the aisle who truly do want to come together in this moment, in this opportunity when the rest of the world is in peril and when the united states can be that shining example. we have an opportunity that excludes the cloture vote in

the senate and the poison pills in the house that will provide an up or down vote on something that is bold, something that is balanced and something that is big. we all know that that is the path forward to job creation and this opportunity is one for us to come together, not as democrats, not as republicans but as americans and seize this opportunity that we have before us. that will continue to be our message. that's the message that our members have sent forward to this committee. we have a very short period of time to enact and that's why we have to move and no one has led us in this area as it relates to small business and creation better than nydia velazquez. >> thank you and good morning, everyone. thank you, leader pellings, steny hoyer. chairman larson said that jobs creation equals deficit

reduction. i am here to say that the economic drivers of our economy are small businesses. that they are the innovators ander in the ones that creates jobs in our economy. we are here to make it clear that we will support deficit reduction and we are here to offer solutions to get our country back on track. the goal is simple, to jump-start the economy, and that starts with small businesses. there is already plans in place to shrink the size of government, but this committee -- this proposal which passed in august and created the joint committee will result in at least $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. this will decrease government spending and ease the burden on taxpayers. but while these savings are in place, we are here to save, be

big, bold and balanced. yes, deficit reduction is essential but it cannot be the end goal. we cannot be so shortsighted that we just spending but to help strengthen our -- just cut spending but to help strengthen our economy. they are the cornerstones of our nation's economy. they are the innovators creating 64% of new jobs. any legislative package reported out of the supercommittee must prioritize their role in the economic recovery. the committee should look at different areas that will be a win-win for the economy and taxpayers. we need to see more shared sacrifice. banks that use small business lending programs can make as much as $150,000 in profit on a single loan, and it is time

they do their fair share. this also means putting a greater focus on smaller loans to would-be entrepreneurs so they can start off, grow and continue to be the engine of our nation's economy. the reality is that growth, that generates is like heating -- it will not only lower the federal deficit but you also create jobs. that is the power of entrepreneurship and it's not the problem but rather the solution. thank you. >> once again, i want to commend our ranking members and the members of the committee who worked with them to put together this proposal from each of the committees to the supercommittee. since the supercommittee was formed, we've been getting ready for october 12.

we had a series of policy committee hearings to take testimony. our members in their committees had worked with their ranking members to bring forth their suggestions. our members have gone out and met with thousands of small business owners to talk to them -- to listen to them and hear their suggestions how small business can be the key to job creation, which they are, capital formation which they are and how we can leverage our public initiatives in a way that creates jobs through small business creation and enhancement. so, again, many of the ideas contained here have had bipartisan support. it doesn't have a bipartisan signature here but hopefully they will be well received by the committee and we look forward to seeing what the republicans will submit tomorrow. hopefully we'll have a great deal of common ground but, again, all of it meets the

openness of public hearings. again, we call for the co-chairs to have public hearings on rivlin and domenici, simpson-bowles and the gang of six proposals. with that we'll be pleased to take any questions that you may have. >> madam speaker, can you give us a little detail -- i point to calm of fax and spending policies that -- >> well, as we said, we want it to be big, we want it to be bold and we want it to be balanced. on the balance side, as all our presenters today have said, we need to have everyone pay their fair share. in addition to that, we have, for example -- well, i want you to read this so i'm not going to give you a shortcut to it, but i think if you see in the natural resources committee by ranking member ed markey has proposals on how we can save tens of billions of dollars in

his area of jurisdiction. we have proposals about jobs, small business creation, of course, the small business committee takes the lead on that but that's something that's impacted by the ways and means committee and by the appropriations -- by other committees as well. so i want -- i urge you to take a look through. i think you will be impressed by it. but it all comes under the framework, big, bold, balanced. it takes about how we can save money, how we can make -- we can have savings that do not hurt our economic recovery. . the distinguished whip has said we have to have growth in order to reduce the deficit. and it's very interesting reading. it really won't take you that long. it is, i think, a very important document because it's realistic

in what it proposes to achieve the goals that we set out to do. >> could you comment on the abortion bill, the g.o.p.'s bringing to the house floor tonight? >> you want to get to that right now? first of all, it's not a jobs bill. everybody in america has the creation of jobs as their top priority, and what are we doing but wasting time? i'm going to yield to steny to talk about how ill-fated this legislation is, but not before saying this, every woman in america should be concerned about this assault on women's health. this is just one aspect of women's health, but it has an impact across the board on how women get their health insurance. it is a waste of time, but i'm going to yield to steny to talk about that. >> obviously it's not a new subject, as i said in my pen and pad, i haven't seen you at the pen and pad recently, i'm not sure what the deal is.

i hear, you right. the fact of the matter is that this is a political bill. the republicans have been talking a lot about criticizing the president of the united states for submitting a comprehensive jobs bill. to put america back to work. a jobs bill which almost every economist that has commented on it has said, in fact, will create jobs and will grow the economy. now, there's a difference as to how much that will be. but there seems to be little difference among economists, right, middle, and left, democrat, republican associated, that the president's jobs bill will in fact grow our economy and create jobs. nobody believes this bill will do that. secondly, this bill substantively puts women's health at risk. in fact, one aspect of it could

undermine the responsibility for hospitals to deal with women who come in a crisis situation where their lives and health are at risk and hospitals may not be required to serve them under this bill. but the fact of the matter is they criticized the president for presenting a jobs bill that they say the president knows won't pass. 2/3 of the american public, of course, when told about the at-specs of this bill, support this bill. 2/3 of the american people believe we'll act on the jobs bill. the fact of the matter is that this bill, that you referred to, no republican believes is going to pass the congress. won't be signed by the president. so when they criticize the president for presenting a bill that won't pass, it should pass, 2/3 of the american public are for it, and it deals with the issue of the -- the american

public is very concerned about, that's jobs. this bill enjoys none of those aspects. they ought to be having a jobs bill on the floor unlike the previous eight months that we have been in session where there have been no jobs bills that economists, not democrats, not republicans, not spin meisters but economists say will grow jobs. none of the bills they offered today have done that. >> the fact that we are dealing with the bill you alluded to shows that -- the disconnect between republican leaders and americans. 64% of the american public is supporting the jobs bill. and we owe this, we owe job creation to the 14 million people who are without a job. the fact of the matter is that wages and income are going down, and poverty is ripe in america. we have to show leadership by taking -- if jobs really start,

then we cannot take this bill, the jobs act, and move it forward -- it has bipartisan proposals. when it comes to small businesses, there is no republican or democratic approach to the issues affecting small businesses. and many of the proposals contained in the jobs bill are republican proposals and are democrat proposals. >> on the matter of iran, how tough can the u.s. be with iran during all the questions that are still at-large and unanswered? >> how tough? i think that we have been very clear in our sanctions bill on iran in terms of trying to isolate them so that they will have some change in their behavior in terms of promoting terrorism, and supporting those outside the country. now, i have been briefed on this matter. most of what i have been briefed on is in the public domain.

that which is not i cannot. let me enlarge the issue for a moment, the fact that iran has a program, a nuclear program, is something that should be of concern to every country in the world. israel has proximity to iran. it's an issue for all of us. and i believe that what we have to do as a country is to -- be very frantic with our allies around the world to say that a relationship with us means putting your foot down in terms of the development of a nuclear weapon in iran. it is a most dangerous thing that is happening in the world today and it must be stopped. hopefully the sanctions that we have in place, the participation of some of our allies, will send a very clear message. this incident, that heam, --

happyly, not happyly, but fortunately avoided another indication of iran's challenges to the security of -- in our country and across the world. the global threat. israel bears the brunt, as i said, because they are the nearest neighbor and having inflammatory statements made against them, but it's a problem for the entire world. >> do you praise the wall street protests? a lot of these protesters seem the system as a whole, washington, wall street, don't they consider your party, that was in control of the last two years of the two branches of government, don't they consider your party at least part of the problem as well? how do you -- >> it's very hard to explain to wall street protesters you need 60 votes in the senate and simple majority is not enough. majority in the house and

majority in the senate. and many of the jobs proposals the president has put forth have been obstructed in the senate. they have been very clear in the senate that the president's failure was very -- with varied success. not to go into that. let's take this to a larger place. 99% they are talking about. i think it's probably 99 1/2% of the american people feel that the system is not fair. that people don't have a fair chance. that obstacles are put up for them to say -- they are obstacles to their achieving success. yeah, i think any criticism of the status quo and the establishment is justified. so when you say i praise this or that, i commend them for being outspoken. they have a very -- varied agenda, but the message is clear. the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable for our

keeping a strong middle class which is essential to our democracy. for a moment i want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that mr. hoyer addressed. he made a point, i want to emphasize it, under this bill, when the republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. it's just appalling. it falls right into their -- it's a health issue. this is a health issue. and it falls right in there with a lot of other initiatives that they had coming up on the floor about clean air, clean water, mercury, you name it. america's families deserve better than this. and, again, today is another example of a wasted opportunity instead of taking up -- even an

aspect of the president's jobs bill that could create jobs -- i can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing. i just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is. withholding care for a woman because of this legislation. >> you have been meeting behind the scenes with some of our caucus members, strategizing about vote suppression. and i'm wondering if you have any plans to anybody from d.o.j., the administration in to even consider filing a lawsuit or does this rise to that level? >> it certainly rises to that level. we believe one of the most perverse policies that have being pursued in our states

around the country are efforts to subvert americans' basic right to vote. it's being done in a number of ways. number one, to require identifications that many people don't have. but they have their sit -- they are citizens and they have every right to vote. suppression efforts have gone on throughout this country and have been accelerated in the last 12 months in many, many states. we intend to heighten america's focus on these efforts and undermining the basic american right to vote and have their vote counted. as you know i was the sponsor of the help america vote act along with bob nay -- neigh -- ney, the leader and i worked closely on that bill along with the colleagues here. we want to make sure that every

american can vow. what we intend to do working with the administration, working with nonpartisan groups around the country, interested in ensuring the basic right of americans to vote, working with civil rights groups, human rights groups, voter education projects, working with the minority communities, working -- whether they be hispanic, african-american, or any other minority, to ensure that in the coming months and years that every american as we pledged to do when we adopted hava, no one has the right to vote. what will be encouraged to vote and will be facilitated in making sure they can cast their vote. the answer to your question is we intend to very vigorously pursue this and we are working very close with the hispanic caucus, with the congressional

black caucus, and with the progressive caucus, the blue dogs, with every aspect of our caucus to make sure that americans can vote and to confront and to bring to light the efforts that are being made throughout this country in too many states to undermine people's right to vote and to suppress registered voters from casting their vote legally and effectively. >> is it actually illegal or are they -- not anything you could really prosecute, correct? >> you're correct some of these may not be crimes. however, the poll tax was not a crime during the period of time that it was in force. it was the law. they were following the law. but ultimately it was concluded that those laws violated the constitutional right of americans to have the opportunity to vote.

and to due process and equal protection of the laws. so that we believe the -- some of these efforts that are being made are clearly designed to suppress the vote of those people who most need to vote to make sure that their government is paying attention to their needs as well as the needs of those who have great resources and can get attention. frankly there are some people the way they get attention is to vote because they don't have great money to contribute or great status or power. so what is their power? americans basically have believed throughout our history the basic power of the people is to vote and select their leadership and select their policies. we want to make sure that's protected. >> i thank the leader for his -- whip for his leadership on this issue which goes way back. our assistant leader, mr. clyburn, has said this is a 21st

century poll tax because a lot of this is targeted to people who can ill afford to go through all the mashinations that it takes to get the kinds of identification that is required or go the distances. for example moving department of motor vehicles to places that are too remote for people to go to. so this is -- our history in our country we have always tried to remove obstacles of participation. that has been the path of our democracy. they want to reverse that. it's wrong. and what others are doing in the congress is to shed light on this. i know that the administration is fully aware of this challenge that is presented. economic, we are talking ethnic, we are talking economic. the dividing line is economic. they don't want poor people to

have the right to vote. they want to limit that access. that's why mr. clyburn calls it the poll tax of the 21st century. don't forget to read the letter. i wasn't going to make it easy for you. how about those 49ers? >> how about those 49ers? how about that. i was there. i left 41-p because i wanted to go see the blue angels then we got to the blue angels and they were fogged out. so we had them the day before, they were wonderful. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

house minority nancy pelosi and others -- minority leader and others wrapping up a weekly briefing this morning. we are going to stay in the room because we are also expecting remarks this morning from house speaker john boehner. he is expected in just a moment to offer his thoughts on some of the trade deals that took place yesterday. the house, by the way, will be returning for legislative work in about 13 or 14 minutes or so. 11:30 eastern. members will start work on a bill preventing health insurance plans offered under the new health care law from covering abortion services. after a procedural vote on that bill, the house will recess, get ready for an address by south korean president lee myung-bak at 4:00 p.m. eastern. he arrived in the u.s. yesterday. he was officially greeted at the white house this morning. and we'll have live coverage of his address to a joint meeting

of congress right here on c-span. that should take place at about 4:00 eastern. again we are waiting for house speaker john boehner to hold his weekly briefing. we plan to bring that to you

pending his arrival time and also when the house comes in. they are scheduled to begin at 11:30 eastern. in the meantime, from this morning's "washington journal," a look at the impact of the free trade agreement that congress approved yesterday. guest: at some point trade issues are somewhat parochial, in the state of new hampshire one out of every four jobs in our state is related directly or either very closely indirectly to exports. one out of every four jobs. if we didn't have the free trade agreements we had in america,

our unemployment situation would probably be worse than the average in the u.s. right now it's around 5% our unemployment rate. so for us to be able to export not only manufactured goods but most importantly services around the world is important and the passage of these three trade agreements, especially to keep the korean, south korean trade agreement, is going to result in a significant increase in business for the state of new hampshire. and in my opinion for the country. host: 5.1%, or 5% unemployment rate, almost, really, half the national average. 10, 12 years ago when we used to visit the areas around the southern tear -- tier of the state, you saw the really empty buildings of earlier manufacturing age. what has brought that region back economically? guest: new hampshire and northern massachusetts have gone through many evolutions over the

last 200 years starting as agarian economies, then moving into the mill business when mills were on rivers and they were essentially grinding grain and making cloth from flacks and so forth. -- flax and so forth. subsequent to that it became more industrial. textile, shoes, tanneries, and so forth. then new hampshire moved into a period and northern new england where the economy really wasn't strong at all. most of the nation's economy was elsewhere. then in the 1950's and 1960's the great industrial complexes of america began to move in. the route 128 cord door as it's called, raytheon, and defense contractors. then we went through the period in the 1990's where new hampshire and massachusetts had very, very high employment rates in the high-tech industry. in new hampshire 15 years ago we had the second highest per capita, high-tech employment force in the country. only the silicon valley was --

beat us. now that's off somewhat and the key to new hampshire and my region is, a, exports, and b, diversity in the economy. we are not a car state or agriculture state or a state that has any particular, big piece of the economy there. we are very diverse. the average size of the employee work force is five or six people. we tend to weather the bad times better, but we don't have the big jumps in economic growth you experience elsewhere in the country when times are good. >> i have to tell you we took about 17, 18 calls and quite a few tweets and the ratio is like this. people calling in today. this would be the people against -- this would be the supporters. here's an example. here's an email directed to you. representative bass, after 30-plus years of these free, in essence quote, trade deals, why do you think another one is going to turn out any different than the others?

how many countries which we have trade agreements are we enjoying a surplus with? as far as millions of americans feel, economic treason is being committed daily because of these? >> i'm a businessman, i was in the manufacturing bhiss and i always used to want to sort of hide behind the wall of a territory where we would be assured nobody could compete with us and we wouldn't have to compete with anybody else. but we quickly discovered when you reach the edge of that territory, the ability to grow and become something greater than we were before has ended and we begin to sell outside of our territory and there would be a big argument. then our competitors would sell inside and so on. the same is true of trade. you have to look at the big picture. the u.s. economy is gigantic compared to what it was even 10 or 15 years ago. when i entered congress in the mid 1990's, when the budget was balanced, revenues to the federal government were less than $2 trillion. now they are $3.5 trillion.

the economy was down, total gross domestic product was down in the say $3 trillion, $4 trillion range, now it's in the $14 trillion range. that isn't because we are selling to one another. i'm not selling to you, you're selling to somebody here. that doesn't create real growth. we need to, as a nation, progress beyond where we were in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's and keep expanding our ability to thrive and prosper and we can't do it by selling back and forth to each other. to the caller i say it's always disruptive. nobody wants to lose a job because of foreign competition. i want -- i understand that. i can't agree more with that. but a lot of new jobs are created, especially in my state, that relate to our ability to have good trade agreements with foreign nations. >> let's go to calls in fredericksburg, virginia, charles, republican there, good morning. caller: wow, that's stunning

comments. i can tell you everything i hear out of this fellow, it may be benefiting new hampshire but when you do step back and look at the big picture it's not benefiting the united states. we travel a lot to korea. if you think you're going to see even one out of 100 cars, u.s. in korea compared to korean cars in the u.s., you're just absolutely -- you're not looking at this with an open eye, period. the previous caller just said that every single country we have an agreement with, we have a negative trade balance. and nobody addresses that. when you add up 95 billion to this country and few billion to that country, that's where the jobs are going. manufacturing is the key to this country, and when -- i'd like the gentleman to answer this question. how do you expect us to compete when i have minimum wage, i have osha, i have e.p.a., i have health care, all the other cost that is make this country great that pay our people livable wages, how am i supposed to

compete with koreans and chinese and vietnamese and colombians? please tell me how you're supposed to do that. host: tell me what do you manufacture? caller: we manufacture products for law enforcement. 85% ever our products go overseas. but the reason why is because we hold u.s. patents. our products are very good. and nobody in these countries make that product. we have been ripped off. our intellectual property has been stolen by the chinese. host: he help me understand what would benefit your business. you are already selling overseas. you have patents. you talk about the fact that our own regulations and policies here lift the american public. i'm having a hard time putting together what would most benefit you. caller: i'm sorry, but it's not benefiting me. i'm not calling -- this call is not to benefit our company. our company does well because we do unique products. we do stuff that nobody else in the world right now, knock on

wood, make. so -- and we sell our clients some of the highest, the reputation carries us. host: if that's the case, if you are arguing on behalf of other manufacturers, i still ask the question what, policies would most benefit american manufacturers? caller: well, the negative t word, which i don't understand why so negative, the tariffs. there is only one way we are going to be able to make the balance. let's say a manufacturer in korea, his total widget costs ends up being 28 cents. here in the united states because of all those issues i explained, as far as osha and minimum wage and everything else, my costs are 35 cents. that's just the reality. there's no way i can compete even in the largest economy in the world, which is the united states, and yes, sir, we can sell to each other and make this thing work. host: jump in, have mr. bass answer. guest: first of all, charles, i think what i hear you saying is that you're in favor of trade, but you want that trade to be on

a level playing field, to be fair. and you made reference two or three times to osha and to minimum wage and to burdensome regulation. and i agree with you. i think that although i don't recommend abolishing regulations, i think that regulations are regulatory schemes that are put forth by several and state authorities that are not necessary. that don't compute well on a cost benefit ratio that society should be reviewed and we have gone way overboard in some areas on overregulation. but your company and again i don't want to focus only on your company, depends on exports for 85% of your business. now, in the case of the korean free trade agreement, their tariffs on our products are four times higher than our tariffs on theirs. what that means is is that there is a potential at least that your products will sell a lot cheaper in south korea if you have any distributors over there, and there are a lot of other people that will benefit in the same way. the underlying question,

however, of competitiveness is not as simple as regulation only. i am aing manufacturer. that has been my business -- i am a manufacture. that has been my business since the 1980's. i learned early that we tend in america, at least i do in new hampshire, to look for the real deal. for example, i see a press break for sale down in massachusetts, only $15,000. it works as well as the day it was made and so on. the only problem with it is if you compare it with what's made today around the world, you have to make everything twice on that press break. rather than spend $15,000 on it, you spend $150,000 on one that's connected to an autocad you don't make mistakes. you don't make it twice. the manufacturing concerns i have been involved with are second to none in terms of competing with those across the world despite the fact that we have to pay higher salaries and benefits and so forth. >> you can see the rest of this

segment in the c-span video lie brarery. go to c-span.org. we are taping house speaker john boehner's briefing. we'll have it later on the c-span networks. live to the house floor for legislative business. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend jesse ragis, san jose catholic church, saipan, northern mariana islands. the chaplain: gracious and loving father, we thank you for

this beautiful day. we ask you to send your holy spirit of good counsel and fortitude to all who make the law. enlighten their minds and their hearts to be moved with compassion and to be conducted in righteousness and be imminently useful for your people over whom you represent. may they have the courage to promote peace and harmony and bring us blessings of liberty and equality. we make this prayer through christ, o lord. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hochul. ms. hochul: i pledge allegiance

to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from the marin ana islands, mr. sablan, will be recognized for one minute. mr. sablan: thank you very much, madam speaker. today i welcome father jesse rhys in the northern mariana islands as our guest chaplain. father reyes was ordained in 2007. since then he's dough voted his life for the parish of san jose. the ministry also includes serving as chaplain at the adult correction facility, as vocation director for the diocese and a spiritual director for the christian mothers and the divine mercy prayer group.

i am grateful that father jesse was able to set aside the work for a few days. this marks the first time that a member of the clergy of the northern mariana islands offered the opening prayer for the u.s. house of representatives. and it is indeed a great honor for the people for our island, all creeds and denominations. thank you for your blessings and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 13, 2011, at 9:20 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 3080, h.r. 3079, h.r. 3078. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, karen l.

haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, last week we witnessed shocking, shocking hypocrisy from president obama. his justice department filed a lawsuit, a frivolous lawsuit that would keep illegal immigrants from taking american jobs. mr. johnson: now, in the lawsuit, mr. obama's lawyers claimed that the law would expos those -- expose those who might be here illegally from, i quote, new difficulties in the routine dealings. now, keep in mind this is the same obama administration that is strangling small businesses with job-killing regulations and because of barack obama,

virtually every small business in america is now facing new difficulties with routine dealings. the people i represent are beyond frustrated with washington politicians that are slow to protect america's businesses yet quick to sue over a law that would help american citizens get jobs. americans have given up on their leadership. so here's the message for president obama. stop targeting small businesses and let these job creators get back to what they do best, create jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. and the chair would remind all members to refrain from engaging impersonalities toward our president. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hochul: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise in job supporting job creation to crack down on the manipulation of chinese currency. businesses in my district like pyro tech are ready to lead the resurgeans on american manufacturing but these businesses are competing on an unlevel playing field. for far too long china has gotenen away to manipulate its currency to make american exports cheaper. there is overwhelming bipartisan support to hold china accountable. we level the playing field. i would put my team against any team in this world second to none. the currency reform for trade -- fair trade act would enhance our economic security. it would enhance our national security and would help create over one million jobs here in america. i call on the leadership of this house to bring this legislation to a vote, and i call on all of my colleagues to support it. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise today to speak on the important rule that john 3:16 ministries plays in the lives of recovering addicts in the first district of arkansas. it is a nonprofit faith-based center that offers men an opportunity to overcome their addictions through faith and service to others. this organization was founded by brian and beverly tuggle who was inspired to open a boot camp after brian sought help. john 3:16 ministries has been helping men struggling with addiction ever since. residents receive lodging, taught skills to help them become more productive citizens and encouraged to enroll in the local college. residents of john 3:16

ministries are allowed to heal spiritually. they offer these services free of charge and is funded by donations only from local churches, businesses and individuals. when asked about the cost of the service at john 3/16 ministries provides, brian has the same offering. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. higgins: madam speaker, the great lakes is one of the most overlooked and unappreciated resources. they are the largest source of surface fresh water in the world, providing more than 30 million people with drinking water and supports multibillion dollar boating, shipping, fishing and recreation economy. the great lakes fishery alone generates $7 billion in

economic activity and directly supports 75,000 jobs. yet, the lakes are threatened by toxic algae blooms fueled by agriculture runoff, sewer overflows and other pollution. lake erie in particular, the shallowest of the lake, is the most vulnerable for having phosphorus. according to the wildlife federation, this summer lake erie saw the most severe algae blooms since the 1960's. madam speaker, the brookings institution reports that every dollar invested in great lakes restoration results in $2 in return in the form of increased fishing, tour itch and home values. this program is cost-effective and i urge congress to reject cuts to great lakes restoration. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of

arkansas' fifth congressman, colonel retired reclaiming my time on t. reid who passed away last weekend at the age of 90. ray reid has an amazing love for his country. at the outbreak of world war ii he left school to go to the army. in the ensuing 31 years faithfully served his nation in uniform. his record of service placed him among the most unique. a veteran of world war ii, korea and vietnam. mr. womack: madam speaker, as if his distinguished military service were not enough, ray reid came to capitol hill and served a quarter century on the staffs of john paul hammersmith, asa hutchinson. whereupon his retirement he earned the nickname of arkansas' fifth congressman. ray reid was an constitution. he enjoyed a long and adventurous life, married to his sweetheart, jean, for 50 years, he was the father of four, grandfather of six and great grandfather of two.

i honor the great life of this serviceman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i voted no on the trade agreements passed in this house last night but in that same vote i voted yes for american jobs. i voted yes for jobs on american soil. i voted yes for human rights and yes for labor protection. the trade agreements will cost us jobs. at a time when we should be investing in america and they will lead to further decline of the middle class. ms. fudge: these are toxic for ohioans who work in manufacturing and other sectors. the u.s.-korea trade agreement will cost almost 160,000 jobs in this country in the first seven years. stand with me for the middle class and against shipping jobs

overseas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does jatcht texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, when i meet with businesses across southeast texas their message for the federal government is clear, back off. over 14 million americans are unemployed because companies are not hiring. companies are not hiring because of the uncertainty in the economy. the federal government red tape and high taxes and unnecessary regulations are crippling job creators and adding to the uncertainty. america has become an unfriendly place to do business, so businesses are either not hiring or they move out of the country. the judiciary committee will soon vote on the rains act. i support this bill because it says that congress must approve every major rule proposed by the executive branch before it can be imposed on the american people and american companies. so the e.p.a.'s dust regulation among several would be no more.

it is the responsibility of congress to rein in the administering's runaway regulators. that is how we get america back to work. the federal government cannot create jobs, but its self-inflicted overregulation is destroying jobs. it's time to end the out-of-control terror on american businesses and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, two days ago the united states senate, the republicans in the united states senate unanimously decided to not bring for consideration the jobs bill. mr. himes: i don't understand the workings of the united states senate and i don't understand the logic behind that decision but i do understand why on a good day the approval of the united states congress is 12%. maybe the bill wasn't perfect. the only justification for not bringing the jobs bill today is because you got a better bill. so i ask the senate and i ask

the leadership of this house, there's 14 million americans who today need a job. so if the bill's not perfect that's fine. let's make it good but let's do it today. the american people cannot wait on the politics of this institution. let's bring a jobs bill to the floor today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, on september 14, 2011 of this year, mark from hopewell junction, new york, sent the following letter to me and said, dear congresswoman hayworth, i have been unemployed for over 18 months and my unemployment insurance ran out. ms. hayworth: reducing my eligibility for extended benefits. you think i would be fuming mad and demanding the companies

hire me. no. instead, i am against president obama's jobs bill. it's guaranteed to add to the country's bloated debt. it will require taxes to be raised. it will waste money training people when there are many with the skills who are unemployed. and i think you're absolutely right. spending hardworking dollars on companies like solyndra, will not work. i commend the senate for rejecting a jobs bill that was a job-killing bill. we in the house in the majority have passed bills joined often by our democratic colleagues that will grow jobs, will revive our economy and i urge all of our colleagues in the senate to pass that agenda immediately. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. costa: madam speaker, as

hispanic heritage month comes to a close, let us all take a moment to celebrate the hispanic community and their contributions throughout the united states. the story of hispanic americans is truly the story of america and all its groups. their dream is the american dream. in america if you work hard, play by the rules, dream big, there is absolutely no limit to what you can achieve. hispanics have succeeded in every walk of life and the success of their community strengthens the very fabric of our nation. let us all recommit ourselves to working on issues important to the hispanic community which, after all, are the same issues important to all americans, creating good jobs, expanding access to higher education, and mending our broken immigration system. when we reflect upon america's history, we are a nation of immigrants from the past and present. let us work together today as democrats and republicans so that every citizen in america can achieve the american dream. i yield the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection. >> madam speaker, in my district and across america, mortgage fraud is a serious crime that's hurt homeowners, businesses and the economy. mr. march chant: the -- mr. marchant: the exact amount of losses is unknown but some state loans were originated with fraudulent applications in 2010. major contributors to mortgage fraud are carried out by nonresident aliens and illegal immigrants. h.u.d.'s office of inspector director said one loan officer gave fraud leapt documents to undocumented immigrants to obtain f.h.a. mortgages. h.u.d. then realized $3.2 million in losses. to correct this problem i have introduced h.r. 695, the purpose of my bill is to cut down on such waste. it does so by requiring e-verify

checks with mortgage applications where the mortgage is guaranteed by an agency of the federal government. this will help stop the fraud in our mortgage system. please join with me in ending this mortgage fraud and help me support h.r. 695. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? without objection. ms. hahn: madam speaker, over the weekend i visited arlington west on the beach in santa monica, a beautiful memorial to the men and women in uniform who have lost their lives in the 10 years of war. as i walked through hundreds of crosses in the sand marking the lives of thousands of young people who have given their -- everything they had to give on the weekend that marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the war in afghanistan, i held these heroes and their families in my thoughts and my prayers.

i want this war to end. and i want to speed up the timetable that our president brings our troops home. we are simply losing too many lives and spending too many resources abroad. we cannot afford to spend $190 million a day on this war when we have crumbling schools and infrastructure here at home that needs fixing. just think what we could build with $190 million a day in this country. think of the jobs we could create with projects rebuilding america. and when our heroes come home, we should do everything we can to help them re-enter their families and their work force. let's put people to work building an american future worthy of the sacrifices of our brave young people in uniform. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise. ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. if our nation's debt crisis has

taught us anything, it's that we need a permanent spending solution to keep america the permanent land of the free. there's only one way to bind congress to such a commitment and that is through a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. house republicans have already changed the debate from how much to spend to how much to cut. yet our extraordinary crisis still demands extraordinary action. washington democrats went on a record spending binge and left america in an economic hangover. new taxes as the president proposes would only punish the nation and reward the spenders with more money to waste. we need to stop spending money we don't have and begin living within our means like every american family and business is expected to do. we need a permanent constitutional amendment for the sake of tomorrow's generations, let's get it done today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? without objection.

mr. price: madam speaker, china's policy of undervaluing its currency is undercutting american manufacturing and american jobs. by giving china an artificial and unfair advantage. in this time of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, we need to take direct, commonsense action to protect the american worker from unfair chinese trading practices. the senate's passed a bill to investigate currency cheating by china and other countries and impose tariff if they are found guilty. yesterday democrats attempted to offer a similar bill which had 61 republican co-sponsors, but 235 republicans voted against it. moreover, house republican leaders have indicated the senate bill will never see the light of day if they have their way. speaker boehner says the fair trade bill with china is, quote, dangerous. the american people don't think there's anything dangerous about protecting american workers from schemes that burden our exports, subsidize their imports, and kill jobs. republican leadership should

bring the china currency and fair trade bill to the floor so the house can give it the bipartisan vote it deserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? without objection. mr. quigley: madam speaker, i rise in celebration of national hockey league, hockey fights cancer day on the hill. anyone who has played the great sport of hockey, who has watched the game, has probably seen a fight or two on the ice. it's no secret hockey players are a tough group. but off the ice there are people fighting tougher problems. those living with and fighting against tanser are tougher and incredibly brave in spite of daunting treatment and uncertain future. with nearly 12 million patients in america today, most of us know someone fighting cancer. be it a family member, friend, or neighbor. the n.h.l.'s hockey fights cancer initiative is an extraordinary opportunity for members of the hockey family to

stand up for our loved ones and to support the organizations that provide cutting-edge research, therapy, and vital support service that is make their lives better. this is one fight i'm proud to be a part of and i encourage other hockey fans out there to join me as hockey fights cancer. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of american families whose jobs and livelihoods are being undermined by china and other countries which purposely undervalue their currency. for the pass several years, economic researchers shown china manipulates the value of its currency by at least 25% to 35% against the dollar. it has contributed to our trade deficit with china, growing it from $68 million to $273 billion in just 11 years. worst of all the american people have become the ultimate

victims. last month the economic policy institute found that 2.8 million u.s. jobs have been eliminated or displaced since 2001 due to the groge u.s.-china trade deficit. last year the currency reform for fair trade act passed this chamber with strong bipartisan support. yesterday, unfortunately, the new house majority voted nearly identical legislation down. the currency reform for fair trade act has been supported by members on both side of the aisle and give this and any administration the authority to take countervailing measures and currency manipulators like china in support of hardworking americans. we need to change that, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? without objection. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. the best way to reduce the debt that this country has is to put people back to work. when they are back to work, they are paying their taxes and they are not getting unemployment.

we need to get everybody in this country working. and the president proposed a bill called the american jobs act that does just that. it focuses on innovation, american innovation and ingenuity. focuses on education, our community colleges and k through 12, and it focuses on rebuilding this country's infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our energy system. you know what happened over in the senate yesterday or the day before? every single republican voted against this. that bill has republican ideas and democratic ideas. but every single republican voted against it. we need to put the people in this country back to work. we don't need to be playing politics about the white house 13 months out from the election. that american jobs act needs to be passed and it needs to be passed right now. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise?

without objection. >> madam speaker, this year a number of states are taking steps to make it more difficult for citizens to register to vote, to limit early voting, and to require photo i.d.'s at the polls. mr. holt: the proponents of these new laws argue that they are designed to combat voter fraud. clearly we don't want people voting illegally, but these new laws are a solution to a problem that does not exist. and these steps will create serious problems. a recent report by the brennan center at n.y.u. shows that these new laws would affect more than five million eligible voters and would disproportionately disenfranchise young low-income and minority citizens. in the past literacy tests and bowl taxes were used selectively to allow certain citizens to vote and disenfranchise others. they were and are illegal and we should -- they should remain so. so we must oppose 21st century

poll taxes which seek to suppress the vote of eligible voters and deny them their constitutional rights and weaken our democracy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? california rise. sorry. without objection. mrs. davis: madam speaker, there is a strange thing that's going to be happening on this floor in just a little while. we should be focusing like a laser on jobs and strengthening the middle class, but instead the majority is bringing forward a measure that protects life app. a measure coming before this body which quite honestly members have had a chance to, press themselves on numerous times. this does not create jobs. and what's ironic about it is it's actually, this protect life act, is actually putting the lives of women at risk.

i really don't think that the american people feel that right now, today, that this is the highest priority for our country. our highest priority is finding jobs for people in our country, not taking away lifesaving care from women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise. ms. wasserman schultz: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mission wasserman schultz: -- ms. wasserman schultz: revise and extend. thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to voice my opposition to h.r. 358, when i speak with women in my district, they are concerned about finding a job. keeping their home from foreclosure, or putting food on the table. what they did not ask for is their constitutional rights to be threatened or their health to be endangered. yet this bill does just that. rather than focus on continuing to rebuild our nation's economy, the republican majority is focusing their time on once again seeking women's access to reproductive care.

i'm particularly troubled that this bill, the protect life act, actually does just the opposite. this bill would override core patient protections and allow hospitals to legally refuse lifesaving treatment to women thus allowing them to die in a hospital despite their treatable condition. this extreme legislation is dangerous to women's health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing american families. i urge my colleagues if they truly want to protect life to vote against this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? without objection. ms. schakowsky: i rise today to issue a warning to america's seniors and working families. top republicans are still trying to privatize social security. the g.o.p. budget chairman, paul ryan, author of the budget that ends medicare and increases health costs for seniors, admitted he views social security as a ponzi scheme.

and congressman pete sessions who serves as house leadership for the g.o.p. introduced legislation labeled, savings accounts for every american act that would have people opt out of social security by sending their contributions to a private account. according to steve goth, social security's chief actuary, this change will, quote, severely compromise, unquote, the ability to pay for current seniors and those near retirement. quote, so social security, the ability to pay benefits to people who are currently receiving or are now approaching the time of receiving benefits, would be severely compromised. a year of trust fund exhaustion would certainly come to be much sooner than the -- 2036. in other words, the plan of the republicans to privatize social security would put that program that has never missed a check to americans in danger. we need to oppose those efforts.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rule, i call up house resolution 430 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 80, house resolution 48430, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h r. 358 to amend the patient protection and affordable care act to modify special rules relating to abortion rules under such action. all points of order against the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and that the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill as amended to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and control bird the chair and ranking minority member on the committee on commerce, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin rise? >> madam speaker, i raise a poifereds that the rule h.res. 430 violates section 426 parena of the congressional budget act. it contains a waiver of all poifereds against consideration of the bill -- all points of order against consideration of the bill including section 425 of the budget act which causes a violation of section 426 parena. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman makes a point of order that it violates section 426a of the budget act of 1974.

the gentlewoman has met the threshold urn the rule and the gentlewoman from wisconsin and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question under consideration. following debate the chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker, for recognizing me. i raise this point of order that h.r. 558 contains several potential unfunded mandates that would burden the state, burden private insurance companies, and burden women. i am also raising this point of order because it is a powerful vehicle to register my concern that this bill is a misguided, ideological distraction from what should be our top priority, getting people back to work and protecting working families who have been hit hard by economic circumstances. it is so clear to me that in

spite of what our colleague mace say across the aisle, this bill is not about public funding for abortion. it's really crystal clear, madam speaker, that the affordable care act already explicitly prohibits federal funding for abortion. it reaffirms the hyde amendment and even includes the nelson amendment to ensure that there's no commingling of funds. h.r. 358 would bring back the infamous world of stupak-pitts but this time adds more restrictive language to the proposal this bill would ban insurance coverage of abortion in health care exchanges, not for women who are being publicly funded or subsidized through the exchanges uh but even for women paying with their own private dollars, madam speaker. in addition, h.r. 358 would create a system that plays russian roulette with pregnant

women's lives when they enter a hospital. this would mean that any hospital could refuse to perform an emergency abortion even if a woman would die without it. without violating the federal law designed to prevent people from being denied emergency medical care. it goes even further by paving the way to allow states -- state refusal of, that are not limited to provision of abortion services but to anything that would be considered controversial. treatment for s.t.i.'s, birth control services, screening services, counseling. and with that, i would yield time to my good colleague from california, representative speier. ms. speier: i thank the gentlelady from wisconsin. madam speaker, i think this bill goes to the farthest extreme in trying to take women

down, not just a peg, but take them in shackles to some cave somewhere. 25 years ago, this body passed empala a bill that says anyone that shows up with an emergency room would access health care no questions asked. now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to amend that law and basically say, oh, except for a woman who is in need of an abortion, or except for a woman who is bleeding to death who happens to be pregnapt. or except for a woman who is miscarrying. basically, what this bill would do is say that any hospital could decline to provide services to one class of people in this country and that one class of people are pregnant women. now let me tell you something. my story is pretty well known now. but i was pregnant, i was

miscarrying, i was bleeding. if i had to go from one hospital to the next trying to find one emergency room that would take me in, who knows if i would even be here today. what the -- what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to do is misodge nist. it is absolutely misodge nist -- misogynist. it is time for us to do something the american people care about. they want jobs and want to be able to hold on to their homes. they want mortgage relief. what do we do? we stand here on the floor and create yet another opportunity for women to be cast in shackles. i yield back to my colleagues. ms. moore: thank you so much for that compelling story. how much time do i have, madam speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin has

five and a half minutes remaining. would the gentleman like to reserve? ms. moore: i would like to yield if i can specify the amount of time, i would like to yield three minutes to another colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman may do so. ms. moore: i would like to yield three minutes to my colleague from illinois, representative january schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank my friend, the gentlewoman, for yielding to me and i rise in support of her point of order. the american people are begging us to work together to create jobs, to bolster the economy. instead, we are here once again to consider legislation that endangers and attacks the right of women and as far out of the mainstream of american priorities. h r. 358 is extreme legislation. it is another attempt to unravel the health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that will harm women's health.

it would take away a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health even with her own money. it would allow public hospitals, as you heard to deny emergency abortion care to women in life-threatening situations. it would expand the existing conscience objection to allow providers to avoid providing continue rah seppings. we're talking now about birth control. this legislation revives a debate that's already been settled there is no federal funding for an abortion in the health care reform law. legal experts have said it, independent fact check organizations have said it. yet republicans continue to insist that the possibility of funding remains. federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions. under the hyde amendment. at the expense, i should add, of poor women, federal employees, women of the district of columbia and women in the military. but this bill goes way beyond

that law. the attention republicans are focusing on the private lives of women, what american families do with their own money, makes it clear that their real goal is to ban all abortions and end access to birth criminal -- birth control and contraseptember is. republicans don't want government to protect pro tect the water we drink or the air we breathe or the food we eat, but they do want to intrude on a woman's rights to choose. we are 280 days into this congress without passing a jobs plan, yet the republican majority has managed to pass extreme and divisive legislation targeted at women's health. the administration opposes h. reform 358 and this bill has no chance of becoming law. now is the time to work on the issues that are most important to americans. creating jobs and improving the economy. rather than restricting reproductive choice and access to family planning. american women would suffer if

this bill becomes law, but we're just wasting time here. it will not and it just shows how mean-spirited and extreme this legislation is and it's a way to roll back women's health and rights. it's too extreme for women, too extreme for america and we should reject it right now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. ms. moore: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of considering the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognize for 10 minutes. ms. foxx spe the question before the house is, should the house new -- ms. foxx: the question before the house is, should the house now consider this bill. the waiver is prophylactic in

nature. the con fwregsal budget office stated that h.r. 35 captains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the unfunded mandates reform act and would impose no cost on state, local, or tribal governments. again, madam speaker, waiver is prophylactic and the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory. i would like to now recognize my colleague from wisconsin, my distinguished colleague from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: i thank the gentlewoman from north carolina for yielding me this time. i have listened very carefully to the arguments that have advanced by the speakers on the other side. my friend and neighbor, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky.

none of them address the question before the house. the question before the house is whether or not to consider this bill. it's not about jobs, although they're important. it's not about the merits of the bill which we will debate later, should the house vote to consider this bill, it's about whether there are unfunded mandates in the bill. the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, read the c.b.o. statement of february 28, 2011. h.r. 35 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the unfunded man taits reform act and would impose no cost on state, local, or tribal governments. that's what the c.b.o. said. and that is not -- that has not been rebutted either by the proposer of the point of order, my colleague from wisconsin, ms. moore, or those who have

spoken on behalf of this. now, we're to follow the rules and say, ok, if there's an unfunded mandate, we ought to waive it, which the resolution does, then we've all got to vote yes on consideration. because there are no unfunded mandates and nobody has claimed that there are any unfunded mandates. that's why the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, is correct in saying that the point of order is dilatory. if you want to debate the bill, let's debate the bill. if you want to object to consideration of the bill, then all you want to do, those who decide to vote no on this motion to consider, don't want to have a debate on whether there should be public funding of abortion. now when the taxpayers are asked to fund abortions, that's a whole different issue than

whether there should be a right to abortion. this question is whether there should be taxpayer funding of abortion. there are no unfunded mandates. and the honest vote is yes on the motion to consider. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: i reserve my right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina will have the right to close. ms. foxx: the gentlewoman has more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. does the gentlewoman have other speakers. ms. foxx: madam speaker, ms. foxx: madam speaker, parliamentary inquire require, i believe we have the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: that is correct, the gentlewoman from north carolina hayes the right to close. ms. foxx: i will reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from -- ms. moore: madam speaker, can you tell me how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from wisconsin has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. i would yield one minute to my colleague, miss spehr, from -- speier, from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. speier: i find it humorous to think that the argument on the other side of the aisle is that this is dilatory when in fact the entire bill is dilatory when you look at what is really facing this country right now. this bill makes it very clear that any hospital that does not want to provide emergency room services to a woman who is miscarrying and needs an abortion would no longer have to do it. let's make that very clear. let me read one little example. from the american journal of public health. a woman with a condition that prevented her blood from clothing was in the process of miscarrying at a catholic owned hospital. according to her doctor, she was dying before his eyes.

in fact, her eyes were filling with blood. but even though her life was in danger, and the fetus had no chance of survival, the hospital wouldn't let the doctor treat her by terminating the pregnancy until the fetal heartbeat ceased. i yield back. ms. moore: 15 seconds. thank you, madam speaker. i could tell you this bill does raise the health and lives of women if the point of order is not found to be in order. to sum it up h.r. 358 is incredibly divisive, it takes away comprehensive health coverage from women. not only eliminating the protections they currently have right now, but going even further than current law and completely undermining women's health. at a time when the majority should be using its tremendous power to create jobs and turn

the economy around, the majority is using its power to turn on women. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i find it unbelievable that our colleagues across the aisle could make the comments that they are making today. h.r. 358 takes away no protections from women in this country. it takes away no rights of women. it is not extreme. 77% of the people in this country are opposed to taxpayer funding for abortions. what h.r. 358 does is to say, we are going to make it absolutely certain that we are not going to use taxpayer funding to pay for abortions. even under what has become known as obamacare. this bill does not go beyond the

pale, as our colleagues have said. it is not outside the mainstream. it is our colleagues across the aisle who are outside the mainstream. they represent 25% -- 23% of the people in this country who do want to see taxpayer funding for abortions. they are outside the mainstream. and talk about dilatory, this whole point of order is dilatory. it is an effort on their part to simply bring up issues that are irrelevant and in many cases the points made are not true. they are the ones who are wasting time. they talk about what we should be dealing with the jobs bill. madam speaker, let me point out to our colleagues across the aisle that not a one of them who spoke today, not a one of them who gave one minutes on the jobs bill have cared to be

co-sponsors of the jobs bill. the jobs bill which president obama has been asking the congress to pass was defeated in the senate. it has -- was introduced in the house by one member and he put on the bill by request. that means it was a courtesy to the president. no other member across the aisle has chosen to co-sponsor that bill. if they are so eager to get that bill passed, you would think that they would become co-sponsors of the bill. we are doing a lot on our side of the aisle to create jobs. we are doing our best to reduce spending and to reduce rules and regulations and that will create jobs in this country. additional spending by the federal government doesn't create jobs. we know that from the stimulus bill that was passed in 2009. and for my colleagues across the aisle who say this is a miss

song us in bill, nobody -- mi song us in bill, nobody has ever fought for the rights of women than i have. but 50% of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. so the misogyny comes from those who promote the killing of unborn babies. that's where the misogyny comes in, madam speaker. it doesn't come in from our trying to protect taxpayers' money from being spent on killing unborn children. madam speaker, in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. all time for debate has expired. the question is, will the house now consider the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is

decided in the affirmative. the gentlewoman from north carolina. the gentlewoman is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, 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. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: madam speaker, house resolution 430 provides for a closed rule, providing for consideration of h.r. 358, the protect life act. i would now like to yield two minutes to my colleague from new jersey, mr. smith.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i thank you, my good friend, for yielding. madam speaker, the protect life act authored by chairman joe pitts and dan lipinski ensures that all the elements of the hyde amendment applies to all the programs that are authorized and appropriated in obamacare. by now i trust that all members fully understand that because programs in obamacare are both authorized and appropriated in the law, on a parallel track not subject to appropriations under h.h.s., the actual hyde amendment therefore has no legal effect whatsoever. hyde only affects labor-hhs programs not the massive expansion of government funded health care. thus obamacare when phased in fully in 2014 will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in the exchanges, resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than would otherwise have been the case.

because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, or starve to death, or induce premature labor, prolife members of congress and according to every reputable poll, majorities of americans want no complicity whatsoever in the disruption of human life. obamacare forces us to be complicit. despite breathtaking advances in recent years, and respecting and treating unborn children as patients, in need of diagnosis and care and treatment for any number of diseases, just like any other patient, far too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona nongrata. i respectfully submit how can violence against children by abortion be construed as benign or compassionate or caring? the dangerous myth of safe abortion must be exposed. so-called safe abortion is the ultimate oxymoron.

and orr wellian of language designed to make a bogus respectability to a lethal act. abortion is by any reasonable definition child more tality. its sole purpose is to kill a baby. i would also suggest that presumptuous talk that brands any child as unwanted or unwanted child reduce that is child to a mere object, bereft of inherent dignity or value. we should not be paying for abortion. i support the pitts amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, madam speaker. the protect life act amends the patient protection and affordable care act to prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services or any health plan that includes such service. it also imposes new restrictions on health insurance coverage for termination care and expands conscience protection laws while

limiting access to reproductive health services. at a time when our nation is facing great economic uncertainty, and millions of americans are in need of jobs, please somebody tell me why we are here considering a bill that is a direct attack on a woman's actually protected right to choose and that does not create one single job? let's be serious here. republicans have yet to pass a jobs bill. instead of getting down to the business of creating jobs, they are bringing to the house floor a deeply flawed and deeply divisive bill that will not pass the senate and would be vetoed if it reached the president's desk. they know that, i know that, everybody knows that. the protect life act is both unnecessary and clearly is

politically motivated. republicans are resorting to their old bag of tricks and pulling the abortion card in order to distract from their clear lack of leadership. in april they rammed through h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funded for abortion act. instead of focusing on efforts to pass a clean continuing resolution that would prevent a government shutdown. as the deadline approaches for the joint select committee on deficit reduction in congress to approve a deficit reduction plan in excess of $1.5 trillion, republicans have deemed it necessary to rehash the health care reform debate and roll back women's rights. i want to clear up one thing. they keep saying obamacare. i have said repeatedly that there are those of us, and i am among them, that advocated for

health care including a public option and universal health care long before we even knew barack obama's name. so perhaps this should be called hastings/obamacare. this time, however, they take it to a new harmful extreme. the protect life act is not about the regulation of federal funds with regard to abortion services. the hyde amendment already does that. this act is about restricting access to care and intimidating women and their families in the use of their own money. since 1976 the hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer money for funding abortions unless the abortion is performed in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. the affordable care act is no exception. regardless of the facts, however, house republicans

continue their assault on a women's right to choose. contrary to popular belief, the protect life act is not the stupak-pitts amendment of the 2009-2010 health care reform debate. it goes far beyond stupak-pitts to impose unprecedented limitations on abortion coverage and restricts access to abortion services for all women. the protect life act would have an adverse effect on women's access to reproductive services, especially for low-income minority women who are very likely to be underinsured or uninsured. and use partial subsidies to purchase insurance. it not only ends abortion coverage for women in the exchange who use their own private funds to pay for their insurance, but also essentially shuts down the private insurance market for abortion coverage.

this act imposes crippling administrative burdens on insurance companies that choose to cover abortion care and bands abortion coverage from all multistate plans interfering with private insurance companies' decisions about what benefits to offer. simply put, the protect life act is a misnomer. . it poses a direct threat to the health and lives of women, it poses -- it -- even more troubling is the fact that it creates an exception to the obligation of hospitals to comply with the emergency medical treatment and labor act which requires appropriate treatment and referral for emergency patients. if enacted, hospitals could

refuse to provide abortion services to pregnant women whose lives are in critical danger. this is beyond irresponsible. it is, indeed, reprehensible. finally, the protect life act vastly broadens already expansive federal conscience laws without regard for patient protection or anti-discrimination protection for providers of abortion services. it safeguards from federal pre-emption state conscience laws beyond abortion which would -- which could allow providers to drop coverage of other prere-productive health services like contraception an even reproductive care like mental health services an h.i.v. counseling. all i hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially those within segments of their party, is that they want the government

to butt out. why then are we considering legislation on the house floor that effectively overturns the privacy rights enumerated by the united states supreme court as well as increases burdensome government regulations on insurance companies. congress should not be making personal health care decisions for women. congressmen, really, shouldn't be involved in making personal health care decisions for women. that should be between a woman, her family, and her doctor. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the foreign affairs committee, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is

recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker and i thank my good friend for yielding me the time. i stand in strong support for the protect life act. i thank my good friend and colleague, congressman pitts, for introducing this legislation, because this will ensure that no funds authorized or appropriated by the health care law will be used to pay for aforce except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of a mother. this is not something new. this is not something radical. it applies a bipartisan prince -- the bipartisan principles of the hyde amendment which has helped guide this chamber's legislative deliberations for over three decades. it sets the same standards aplide to medicaid, the federal employees health benefits program and other federal programs. the american people, madam speaker, have made it quite clear that they do not want their taxpayer dollars used to fund abortions. and the stupak-pitts amendment,

as we know, it was gutted in the senate, the president's executive order stating that the hyde amendment would apply is not enough. why? it is flawed because executive orders can disappear as quickly as they are issued. but the protect life act will create a solid framework that will safeguard taxpayer dollars. we must protect the sanctity of an innocent human life. we must stand behind the rights of the unborn and we must prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions. that's why i'm proud to support the protect life act and the rule for it. i thank the gentlelady for the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, would you be so kind as to tell me how much time remains on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 23 minutes remain, the gentlewoman from north carolina has 26 1/2. mr. hastings: at this time i'm

going to yield to a number of members for unanimous consent the first of whom, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. quigley: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an assault on a woman's health and her right to make her own life decisions. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield for unanimous consent request ms. velazquez of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. velazquez: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because this extreme legislation is dangerous to women's health. and does nothing to address the issue affecting american families. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentlewoman suspend? ms. foxx: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: it is appropriate for our colleagues across the aisle to make comments about the bill when they're asking unanimous consent?

the speaker pro tempore: the chair would advise members to confine their unanimous consent requests to a simple declarative statement of the member's attitude toward the message, either aye or no. further embellishments will result in continued deductions of time from the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: that declarative statement, am i correct that it could include a sentence? the speaker pro tempore: a simple declarative statement is acceptable, an embellishment, because ta-da-ta-da, would be embellishment. mr. hastings: i yield to the jeament from california. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because

americans need us to focus on jobs right now not this extreme bill that endangers the lives of women. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the chair will begin deducting time. ms. hastings: no problem. i yield to the gentlelady from california. ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous con -- consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill that is extreme dangerous legislation. the speaker pro tempore: eyield to the distinguished gentlelady, ms. matsui, for unanimous con ept. ms. matsui: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it's dangerous to women's health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will be charged. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from the state of washington, mr. mcdermott, for unanimous consent. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an attack on women and does nothing to deal with the job crisis in this country. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will be charged. mr. hastings: i yield to the distinguished lady from wisconsin, ms. moore for unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. moore: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strident, strident opposition to this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas will be recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. as a co-sponsor and proud parent of two young boys, adopted young boys, whose family exists only because two

women in two difficult situations in two different states chose life and gave us a family, i am proud to rise in strong support of the rule to allow the house to consider the protect life act led by my friend and colleague, congressman joe pitts. over a year ago, president obama in the health care plan was signed into law despite a strenuous outcry by the american people without significant and substantial prohibitions on federal funding for abortion. this funding of abortion through insurance plans, community health centers and other programs created by the new health care law could have been avoided but such language was intentionally left out. there have been restrictions on apportions and subsidies for over 30 years, begin with the hyde amendment in 1976 an i'm proud that today we are acting in that spirit. regardless of whether you are pro choice or like me, strongly pro life, americans have always agreed we will not use federal tax dollars to subsidize or

incentivize abortion. you don't have to take my word for it. in poll after poll, more than 60% of americans oppose using federal funding for abortions and more recently, 2/3 of americans said we shouldn't subsidize health insurance that includes abortions. the president's health care plan fails to provide real conscience protection for health care providers who decline to participate in abortions by mandates that they not be discriminated against because of their religious faith. the bottom line is this bill retake up today strikes -- strikes an important balance and makes sure your federal tax dollars are not used to subsidize abortions in the president's plan and we make sure that people in institutions are able to care for their patients, not forced to violate their moral principles. i urge my colleagues to respect america's conscientious oklahomas to abortions by voting for the rule and for the protect life act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, mavepls. earlier this year we learned what opponents of choice really think of women when they attempted to redefine rape in h.r. 3. when they claimed to be fiscal watchdogs and voted to repeal funding for family planning and planned parenthood which saves the public $4 for every $1 invested. now they're pushing h.r. 35 , the falsely named protect life act which rather than protect life would allow hospitals to refuse lifesaving treatment to women on religious or moral grounds this will also effectively ban comprehensive insurance coverage which includes abortion care. even if a woman pays with her own private dollars. h r. 35 like every extremist anti-choice measure before it reveal what is choice opponents really think of women. here's what i think of women.

i think they should be able to make their own life choices about their own bodies. i think we should vote down this bill and every other destructive measures being pushed by those who think so little of our mother, sisters, wifes and daughters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pompeo: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 358, the protect life act and thank congressman pitts for his hard work on this legislation. kansas has long been at the front line of defending life and i join other kansans in acknowledging that life begins at conception and nearly all kansans understanding that federal taxpayer dollars should never be used for abortions. i know the history here and for a long time there was bipartisan support for the hyde amendment and legislation that said that taxpayer money should not go for abortions but today the left has move sod far that

they object to this simple, common sense measure which will protect taxpayers from their money going to a procedure which they find abhorrent. simply put, we must end what obamacare did. we must stop subsidizing abortions with federal taxpayer dollars and i urge my colleagues to support this rule an h.r. 358 and protect the life of the unborn. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. holt: i thank my friend. i rise in strong opposition to the so-called protect life act. our first priorities now here must be helping to foster job creation and support middle class families. we're 280 days into this congress without passing, without even having, a jobs plan from the majority. instead the republicans have chosen to continue their radical assault on women's health and health care in the guise of preventing the use of federal funds to pay for abortion procedures this bill

is as unnecessary as it is offensive and inhumane. it would penalize private insurers who offer comprehensive plan, allow hospitals to refuse life-saving care to women, would prevent act stose birth control including providing emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. instead of debating how to put americans back to work, the majority party is spending our time on socially divisive bills that are going nowhere. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i would like to introduce our distinguished colleague from new jersey, mr. garrett, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i also rise in support of h.r. 358, the protect life act. doesn't that name really say it all? the protect life act. historically the federal funding of abortion has been restricted. time and time and time again, an overwhelming majority of

americans have indicated that they oppose federally funding their tax dollars of abortion. go back to 1976, congress has repeatedly passed the hyde amendment. what does it to? it ensures that no federal government dollars are used to pay for elective abortions or insurance plans that provide elective abortions under medicaid. -- medicaid. the insurance plan forced through congress this last session would allow federal funds to subsidize, would allow federal funds to support and pay for abortions on demand in america for the very first time since 1976. . the hyde amendment overwhelm extends to h.h.s. but the obama health care plan, what does it do? it exploits that loophole. as the law now stands the government can force health care providers cover abortion under the guise of family planning or countless other euphemisms. my friends on the other side of

the aisle say that's incorrect because president obama signed an executive order to bar abortion funding. no. members on both side of the aisle know that pointing to an executive order is disingenuous at best. we all know as we come to the floor that this executive order, the same one that planned parent federation of america calls simply a symbolic gesture can be completely undone by a future administration. the only way, literally the only way a sure the taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortions is how is right this way. through legislative action. president obama's insurance plan passed congress did so over the objection of the majority of the american public. so it is time now that we come to the floor to respect that majority of americans and assure that they do not fund abortions simply by tage their packses every april 15. therefore i urge all my colleagues to support this bill as i said at the very beginning, the protect life act.

the bill says it all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from massachusetts, miss tsongas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. miss tsongas: madam speaker, recently i got an email from my constituent from my hometown of lowell, massachusetts, that said, quote, i think republicans are focusing on the wrong thing. we need jobs. unquote. our constituents are pleading with us to focus on jobs. yet here we are again debating an ideologically driven bill that does nothing for the economy as it endangers women's health. for women to receive the best possible health care, they need, we need access to all legal and appropriate medical procedures. decisions about these procedures should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor and her family. i believe a woman's right to choose is fundamental to a woman's freedom, but this bill puts the government in the middle of that decision.

this bill discriminates against women and goes so far as to prevent those who want to buy a health plan that covers abortion services with their own money from making that choice. this bill also permits hospitals and hospital workers to choose to deny women care that could save their lives, putting ideology above women's health. let's focus on the right thing and vote down this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now would like to yield two minutes to our distinguished colleague from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: madam speaker, i rise in support of both the rule and the bill. in 1973 the supreme court decided that the right to an abortion was a constitutional right. but they did not decide that

there was a constitutional right to have the taxpayers pay for it. the hyde amendment was passed every year since 1976. with my support and the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority. however, when the president's health care bill was rammed through this house in march of last year, the hyde amendment didn't apply. so if you try to get a medicaid abortion, the hyde amendment applies and the taxpayers don't finance it. but if you try to get an abortion under the obama plan or under the exchanges that have been set up under the obama plan, then there will be taxpayer money that will be used to pay for it. this bill closes that loophole and is in response to the overwhelming sentiment of the american public, including many of those who do support

legalized abortion. now, secondly, this bill also reaffirms federal and state conscience protection laws. the supreme court when it decided roe vs. wade did not force people to choose between their faith and their job if they had religious objections to abortion. this protection is not afforded in the obama health care bill. this legislation closes that loophole. we have heard a lot about jobs from people on the other side of the aisle that don't want to talk about the fact that this legislation shuts the door to two loopholes that i have just described. maybe there will be more unemployment if someone who has a license to practice medicine or is in the health care profession is told that they have to violate the tenets of

their religion in order to keep their job. now, we have a choice. we have a choice of freedom and liberty by closing the loopholes and passing the bill or not. i urge support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i yield to the distinguished lady from new york, the prerogative of offering unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: thank you, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record my opposition to this attack on women's access to reproductive health services and our fundamental right to lifesaving medical care. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the distinguished woman from connecticut, ms. delauro, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: this bill threatens the health and basic rights of american women. the majority is once again trying to embed their extreme,

their divisive, ideological preferences into law. they are trying to impose their backward view of a woman's role on everyone else. forcing women back into traditional roles with limited opportunity. they need to trust and respect american women. the bill goes beyond prior legislation. it bans working women access to a legal medical procedure. it denies all but the wealthiest women their choice in health services. it puts the government between a woman and her doctor. it allows hospitals to deny lifesaving care to women. we should be standing up today for the middle class by working to create jobs, not trying to prevent women access to life saving health services. this bill is an affront to

women's health. i urge all of my colleagues to oppose it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i'm a little appalled at some of the comments that i have heard across the aisle, especially those that say that talking about jobs is more important than talking about saving lives. i don't believe there are many americans who would agree with our colleagues who say that we in this country pride ourselves on saving lives at every opportunity, both humans, animals, any form of life, and i believe this is a worthy debate for us to be having today. but, madam speaker, the republican-led house has also

been working hard to rein in out-of-control government spending and represent the majority of the american people who elected us, and we know by reining in spending we can do something to help create jobs. so we are not a one note party. we understand we can do both of those things. and the bill before us today is a continuing effort to steward the taxpayer money wisely, represent the majority of americans who believe taxpayer money should not be used to pay for elective abortions, and thereby protect innocent life. last year as others have said the liberal democrats rammed through their health care overall legislation and refused to include standard pro-life protection that is have had broad bipartisan support in the past. the rule before us today provides for consideration of

h.r. 358, the protect life act, which prohibits taxpayer funding for elective abortions under obamacare and also prohibits the federal government from forcing private insurance companies to offer plans that cover elective abortions. it does not take away any rights of women. in addition, the underlying bill ensures that taxpayers' subsidies for purchasing health insurance plans on the obamacare exchanges are not used to pay for plans that cover elective abortions and does not allow the federal government to administer health plans that cover elective abortions. this is consistent with the history in our country of not using taxpayer funding for elective abortions. finally, the bill provides for conscience protections for prolife health providers and entities to ensure they are not discriminated against for their pro-life beliefs and practices. this bill has gone through

regular committee, and passed the house commerce committee on february 15 with bipartisan support. the need for this legislation is critical as the institute of medicine recommended in july that what has been -- come to be called obamacare should cover emergency contraception with no co-pay or deductible. many pro-life conservatives are concerned that this recommendation is a slippery slope to, again, what has been known as obamacare, mandating and covering elective abortions because the law does not contain specific long-standing prolife protections. a zogby poll last year found that 7% of americans believe that federal taxpayer funds should never pay for abortion, or should pay only to save the life of the mother and it is unacceptable that the liberal democrats ignored the will of the people last year in ramming through their government takeover of health care.

as you can see, madam speaker, the vast majority of americans don't want their tax dollars paying for or promoting abortion. this isn't part of a radical social agenda as some of our friends on the left like to say. this is part of a long-standing and growing social consensus. americans do not want their tax dollars supporting the abortion industry or promoting this terrible practice. in may, this house passed h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. this legislation would codify many long-standing pro-life provisions and ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to perform abortions. h.r. 3 is now awaiting consideration in the senate. as a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 3 and h.r. 358, i will not cease to fight to protect the lives of the unborn at every turn. since 1973, approximately 52 million children's lives have

been tragically aborted in the united states. until we have a permanent prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortions and protections for health care providers who cherish life, i will continue to offer and support efforts to protect taxpayers' families and children from the scourge of abortion. the unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society and their right to life must be protected. yesterday in the rules committee our friends across the aisle we spoke against this rule and bill said we are bringing up, quote, hot button social issues as the versions from the important topic of jobs. i have two responses to them on that comment, the issue of life is not a hot button social issue. it's at the very core of our values as a country. we go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings but even animals because we value life so much. however there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same

esteem. that is tragic for more than one million unborn babies every year. therefore, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote in favor of the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. mr. hastings: would you tell us again how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: certainly. the gentleman from florida has 18 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from north carolina has 13 1/2. mr. hastings: i'm pleased at this time to yield one minute to the distinguished minority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving me this opportunity. as the mother of five children when i brought my baby, youngest baby, number five, home from the hospital, my oldest baby was turning 6 years old. birth of a baby is such a jubilant occasion and women's