the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 167, the nays are 253 the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote

on amendment number 15, printed in house report part a, offered by the gentlewoman from jea ms. hanabusa. the clerk will redesignate. the clerk: amendment number 15, printed in part a in house report 112-398 offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 189 and nays are 228. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished is request for recorded vote amendment number 16 printed in part a house report 112-398 offered by mr. hastings on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate. the clerk: printed in part a of

house report 112-398 offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 252. the nays --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 250. the nays are 171. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment 17 printed in part a of house report 112-398 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. spourtspurt -- those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 167 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 168. the nays are 254. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 112-398 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183. the nays are 238. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment 19 printed in part a of house report 112-398 by the

gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. labrador of idaho. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 244 and nays are 177 amendment being agreed to. the committee rises under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. chairman the committee of the whole house of the state of the union have had under consideration h.r. 3408 i report the bill as amended back to the house with amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3408 and pursuant to house resolution reports the bill as amended by that resolution backs to the house with amendments adopted in the committee of the whole.

under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on a separate amendment? if not the chairman will put the question, those in favor say aye. , those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to set clear rules for the development of united states oil shale resources to promote shale technology, research and development and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek

recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the clerk: committee to report back to the house forth with with the following amendment at the end of the following title miss provisions section restriction on permits and leases for the great lakes and the florida everglades, no federal or state permit or lease shall be issued for oil and gas slant, directional or offshore drilling in, under or within five miles of any of the great lakes or the florida everglades. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker -- >> mr. speaker -- >> the transportation package is a dead and it is being panched by businesses and democrats and republicans alike and what we will vote on next is the republican funding portion of the package and it's a little bit different. see it is a special story. in fact, it's a love story. the love story the breathtaking display of affection of big oil by the republican party. the love letter from the

republicans -- >> mr. speaker the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. ms. castor: the republicans -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. the bill is a special valentine a love letter of the republicans undiing devotion to big oil. no others compare. the problem is with the republican congressional leaders' blind passion for big oil, they demonstrate an animosity to american families and businesses. it has been less than two years since the deepwater horizon disaster and republicans now propose to drill for oil just about anywhere. have safety measures been adopted by this congress? no. do they recognize that there are

special places across america that are not appropriate for oil drilling? not really. for example, the bill would allow drilling off the beaches of florida. florida's tourism industry employs more than one million people. tourism and fishing are multibillion industry, drilling closer to our shores puts those jobs at risk. yet, that's what the republicans propose here and for what? the c.b.o. says if you drill off the coast of florida that would generate $100 million. $billion or 100 million? bp decimated the gulf coast and caused damages in our environment and economy. it cost the state of florida $2.2 billion and almost 40,000 jobs. the republican love letter to big oil -- >> mr. speaker --

the speaker pro tempore: members will be reminded not to traffic the well when other members are speaking. the gentlelady may continue. ms. castor: the republican love letter to bill oil may be the kiss to big death to the economy and families that rely on tourism and that is in the state of florida. this bill puts job at risk to allow big oil to drill anywhere including unique and sensitive areas across america. republican leadership has made it clear, they are willing to sell america to the highest bidder. i'm here to say america is not for sale. is nothing sacred is nothing off limits? how about mount vernon, would we drill there if we could make a few bucks. how about getties burg?

why not check grandma and grandpa's back yard, you are trying to take away their medicare, so why not start there. there are places in america that are not for sale and should be protected and my amendment provides a cap. here's the cap -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. ms. castor: i put two special areas, my amendment will prevent drilling of five miles of any of the great lakes or the everglades. now don't get me wrong, we must have robust domestic oil production. we are currently producing in america at higher levels than ever before. we have more domestic production than we import. last year, u.s. crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003 and the obama administration has offered and continues to offer millions of acres of public lands and federal waters for oil and gas exploration and production.

in 2010, the department of interior offered 37 million acres in the gulf of mexico for oil and gas exploration, but the oil companies have only tapped 2.4. why are we going to open up more public lands for drilling when we haven't used 1/15 of what's available? it's a love story. last year although exxon made $41 billion, bp, $25 billion republicans saw the american taxpayers chipped in another $10 billion from 2002 to 2008. enough is enough. we aren't going to turn the great lakes and everglades from environmental treasures. the great lakes and everglades employ many americans who work in tourism fishing and industries. i urge my colleagues not to play a role in this love affair

between most republicans in congress and big oil. vote yes on this motion and pledge your devotion to our great nation rather than big oil. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, this is one more example where the other side is playing politics with american energy and american job creation. at a time, mr. speaker, when iran is threatening global energy meltdown the middle east is undergoing numerous uprisings, china's oil is growing and our consumers facing

rising prices at the pump, it is time to secure our future with american-made energy. the other side talks about energy security. this legislation, the underlying legislation offers real opportunity to expand our domestic energy production and secure our security. the other side talks about federal revenue. this legislation would bring in billions of dollars to the federal and state government and bring tens of billions of dollars of investment into this country. and most importantly, mr. speaker, while the other side talks about creating jobs for americans, this legislation will create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs for american workers. and while the other side cheapens these jobs by calling them temporary we call these jobs what they reallyr american jobs. the underlying legislation sets out a commonsense action plan to

secure our future and increase federal revenue and investment in this country. oppose this motion to recommit and vote no and vote yes on the underlying legislation. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the motion is not adopted. the gentlelady from florida. ms. castor: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those requesting a recorded vote will rise. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered and passage of the jourm if ordered.

this is a 15--minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 176, the nays are 241. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. this legislation is adopted. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested by the gentleman from massachusetts. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,

inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 237, the nays are 187. the bill is passed. without objection, the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 rule 20, unfinished business is question on agreeing of the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. those in favor say aye. will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.

the chair lays before the house sundry communications. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir i hereby submit my resignation from the committee of homeland security i have accepted an assignment to the house armed services committee. if you have any question or concerns, please feel free to contact me. . the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir i resign my position on the house committee on the budget effective today, thursday, february 16, 2012, signed sincerely paul d. tonko member of congress. the honorable, the speaker house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i

have been served with a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of new york to produce documents in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed sincerely, john d. dingell, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, resignations are accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> mr. speaker, by -- i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: house resolution 553, resolved that the following named members are elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives. one, committee on armed services, ms. expire.

two, committee on the budget, ms. bonamici. three, committee on resources mr. tonko. committee on space, science and ms. bonamici. the speaker pro tempore: works. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection. the gentleman is recognized.

the gentleman will suspend. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: mr. speaker president obama's mandate on abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptive services hat not gone away, i repeat not gone away. it has not been settled. there is no compromise. the administration's assault on the first amendment continues. the deeply-held beliefs of people are still under attack. let's be clear. the president remains as determined as ever to force insurance companies and their customers to pay for services which define the moral fiber of their beings and contrary to

religious beliefs and sacred teachings. despite what you have heard no rules have changed. there has been no accommodation. president obama is simply hoping to cover this issue with a smokescene to push it pass election day so he can still get his way. this congress needs to act and act right now to put in conscience protections that the administration cannot violate. we need to safeguard our religious liberties against these attacks by the obama administration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: any further requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mrs. bono mack for

food and february 17 and mr. campbell for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requestions is -- the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5 2011, the gentleman from from colorado mr. lamborn is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. lamborn: permission to address the house for 60 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker. america has a long history of religious freedom. in the 17th century colon nists

fled what would become the united states of america in semple of religious freedom. congress drafted the first amendment ensuring the free exercise of religion. throughout the 20th century, the supreme court has upheld the rights of individuals to practice their religion according to the dictates of their own conscience. in 2001, president bush established the office of faith-based and community initiatives to encourage faith-based programs without changing their mission unquote. but today the obama administration's policy threatens that fundamental freedom. that health care mandate despite a motivated so-called compromise forces religious organizations to pay for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. so much for religious freedom. the mandate is an unprecedented

act of trampling on the beliefs of millions of americans. i stand with my colleagues showing our united opposition to any efforts by the obama administration to disregard deeply held religious beliefs. i'm a co-sponsor for rights of conscience act introduced by representative jeff fortenberry of nebraska, which would protect the rights of conscience and leave federal law before the president's health care plan was passed. a number of representatives are troubled by this unprecedented government intrusion into the first amendment right of freedom of religion. we are going to take the next 60 minutes to explore just how wrong this decision was, now meaningless the so-called compromise is and how vital to our country freedom of religion is today. at this point i would like to

recognize the courageous sponsor of the respect 9 life of conscience act representative fortenberry of nebraska. mr. fortenberry: i thank you for holding this discussion. this is a very important discussion because it is about a fundamental american principle. and as you mentioned, over a year ago we began on the act in anticipation that the new health care law may actually be used to undermine religious freedom and the moral precepts that deeply-held beliefs of many americans in this country. you mentioned this particular bill hopefully will get it through this house soon, there is a companion measure in the senate but this particular bill would not only protect faith-based organizations who are targeted by this new h.h.s. mandate by the strong arm of government forcing them to pay for drugs but it will protect

all americans, because right now these institutions as well as other people of goodwill are being asked to choose. follow your deeply-held reasoned beliefs or obey president obama and secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius' new mandate in violation of your conscience rights. that is a false choice. that is un-american. that violates a deeply-held principle of this country namely religious liberty which we have held so dear throughout our history. the respect for conscience act it restores to where we were before the new health care law came into being and prevent such as things as this new mandate which is an intrusion of government into the lives of many americans from ever happening. i'm pleased, your willingness to

hold this discussion with fellow members. bipartisan bill. there are republicans and democrats on this bill. there are over 200 house members who have co-sponsored this bill, democrats and republicans and 37 members on the companion piece in the united states senate, dropped by my friend, senator blunt from missouri. senator blunt has offered this to potential amendments as must-pass legislation. so there is tremendous momentum for this piece of legislation because it's not about politics, it's not about partisanship but about principle a fundamental american principle, the rights of conscience and religious liberty as applied in health care. so i'm pleased by the outpouring of support from members on both sides of the aisle here. that is due to the intensity of concern across america about how this time the government has

gone too far. with that, i'll yield back to you. but i appreciate your willingness to hold a good conversation on this fundamental principle. . mr. lamborn: i want to applaud congressman fortenberry, for being a leader on this important issue of protecting the rights of the conscience of americans. and i thank you for your leadership on this issue. mr. fortenberry: i appreciate it. i hope we continue to hold more conversations about this because america needs to know and america is already speaking and that is evident in the number of members who are deeply interested in this bill. mr. lamborn: and i can certainly count 200 members is close to the magic number of 218 which is 50% of the hold. so, you're doing great work and i appreciate that. mr. fortenberry: thank you very much. mr. lamborn: many americans appreciate your work. mr. fortenberry: thank you.

mr. lamborn: at this point i would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from louisiana, my classmate from the 2006 term, the 110th congress, steve scalise. mr. scalise: i thank my friend, the gentleman from colorado, for yielding, and for taking the lead on this hour dedicated to standing up for religious freedom. also i thank my colleague from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, for his leadership in bringing forth legislation which i'm a proud co-sponsor, that would repeal the decision that president obama came down with. that is an attack on religious freedom. and as a catholic who attends church, it's rare when you see a catholic priest talking from the pulpit calling on the parishioners to call congress, to contact congress about any issue. and yet i want to applaud the catholic bishops who have been so vocal in helping bring this issue to light and standing up and saying, this is something that we will not comply with

because it violates our own religious beliefs. and the beauty of the constitution and especially when you look at the bill of rights, are the rights that it lays out to all americans. and when you read that first amendment, there's a reason that the freedom of religion is the first amendment placed in the bill of rights. because our founders believed it was a right that was handed down to us from god, through our founding fathers, and that it was given to all american citizens. and yet the president came out with this ruling and he says, well we'll have a little exemption just for places of worship. not religious organizations, just the place of worship. and everybody else, they're on their own and they've got to, they've got religious beliefs that they don't want to have to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, for example, which the president mandates -- mandated, then the president basically said no, you have to do this. even if it violates your religious beliefs. that violates the first amendment of the constitution. it violates the bill of rights.

no president has the ability to violate those bill of rights. those constitutional rights we have. and then the president just a few days ago came out with what he called an accommodation. an accommodation where he said, ok, we'll carve out a little more exception. still doesn't apply to an employer for example, that has those same religious beliefs, but he said we'll carve out an exemption. well guess what? after the president carved out that exemption so to speak they actually issued a final rule. this is the final rule from the obama administration after he gave a press conference, giving a political speech. and in the final rule it says these regulations finalize without change interim final regulations. in other words, they didn't even put any of the things from the president's press conference where he said he was going to give accommodations. no, that's in the final rule. the final rule still says if you're a catholic school for example, or a catholic church and i know colorado christian university is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit

because they would face a half a million-dollar fine under this rule. even after the president gave a press conference. you can't go to court and say, look, i'm not going to comply with this rule and they're going to say, well you have to comply it's the law. they're going to say oh, but the president gave a speech saying i have to. it's still in the rule. and again, any president who thinks that he has the power to issue accommodations to the bill of rights is a president who thinks he's got the ability to take away those bill of rights. he doesn't have that. and that's why i'm so proud to stand here with my colleague from colorado and so many others that have stood up and said, we're going to stand up and defend those religious freedoms that are so precious. not just for religious organizations, but for all americans as it's called for in the bill of rights and so it's around important issue that we need to keep fighting on because this is all a component of the president's health care law. i remember back in those days when the president stood right here on this house floor, at that podium, and he looked at all members of congress and he

said, if you like what you have you can keep it. you remember that? all americans heard that time and time again. the president said, if you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it. guess what? with this ruling he broke that promise he made to the american people. because if you're a religious organization and you like the fact that you don't have to provide and you're not going to provide abortion-inducing drugs because it violates your own conscience, the president's now saying you can't keep it. you have to abide by my ruling. that goes against the will. and if you're a religious organization that's self-insured they're left out of this too. so there's so many problems with this. i'm glad they're fighting it in the courts but the bottom line is they shouldn't have to go to a court to defend the first amendment. that should be something that's sack row sanction. the president -- sacrosanct. so i appreciate the gentleman for his leadership tonight and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman for making his remarks. and he mentioned colorado

christian university. the president of that fine institution is former u.s. senator bill armstrong who served colorado both in the u.s. house and the u.s. senate in such a distinguished manner. and that is not necessarily a catholic institution. it's more of a protestant institution, although people of different christian backgrounds attend there. but this shows that it's not strictly a quote-unquote catholic issue. all people of faith are concerned about the violation of conscience. you see here this quote from martin luther king, february is black history month, and i think it's appropriate to look at what he said. he said, there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right. he pointed to the need to listen to our consciences when deciding matters of great importance.

and martin luther king left a great legacy for this country and his respect for the conscience of the individual is one of those marks of his legacy. i would like to now recognize my colleague and friend, the gentleman from maryland, for such time as he may consume. >> thank you very much. mr. speaker, we have one of the most serious assaults on religious liberty in american history. mr. harris: the president's rule finalized last friday in its unchanged form, as we just heard violates the individual rights to religious freedom that every american shares. the bill of rights doesn't pertain to organizations. it wasn't written for groups. it was written for individuals.

every individual having the right to exercise their religious belief. the president's rule not only restricts individuals, it restricts everything except the actual what exists between the walls of a church building -- mr. speaker, that's not what the first amendment is about. my parents, like many immigrants to this country, fled countries where those beliefs weren't held . my parents came from communist countries where we don't find it far fetched to believe that they would imprison they would punish individuals for their religious belief. but let's look at what the president's affordable care act has turned into.

mr. speaker, we knew in that -- we knew, america knew, what that bill was passed, because the previous speaker of the house said, we just have to wait to pass it, we'll find out what's in it. mr. speaker we're fining out what's in it and the -- mr. speaker, we're finding out what's in it and america doesn't like it. because what's in it is the ability under the current rule to restrict individual religious freedom. and if you choose to exercise your religious freedom, you are punished by the government with a fine and it's not just a few dollars, it's $2,000 per employee. if an employer has deeply felt religious beliefs, deeply held, it's not up to the president or the secretary of health or anyone in the federal bureaucracy or government to decide if those are appropriate religious beliefs.

yet that's exactly what this rule does. it says, if you don't share their religious beliefs or their beliefs in certain types of health care, you're going to pay a fine to the government. why, that sounds a lot like governments where immigrants have fled from to this country, to share in the individual religious belief. let's go down the list of what this final rule impairs. it violates the religious freedom restoration act passed in this congress two decades ago. it obviously violates the first amendment free exercise clause because it does place a substantial burden on individuals who choose to exercise religious belief. that's all they're doing. we have made it an effective crime to hold a certain religious belief that this administration disagrees with.

that's not america. that describes a whole lot of other countries in the world, but it doesn't describe america. it violates the free first amendment free exercise rights because it intentionally discriminates, intentionally discriminates against religious beliefs. it imposes requirements on some religions, not on others. it picks winners and losers. that's exactly what the first amendment was meant not to do. and, mr. speaker, it's not going to be adequate if we just extend it to religious organizations because i remind you, the first amendment is not about groups or buildings or churches or any institutions, it's about the ability of every american to not violate their conscience. and if their conscience says it would be wrong for me to provide insurance to an employee that

would provide something that my religion -- religious beliefs disagrees with who are we as the government to step in and say you have to violate your religious beliefs and if you don't you pay a fine to the government? that's not the america we believe in. it never has been, hopefully it never will be. we know that the president's final rule, because we just heard it. and, mr. speaker, some people listening to us will say, that's not true, that's not true. go google the final rule. compare it to the rule last summer. the final rule issued hours after the president claimed a compromise and compare it with the interim rule issued last summer. not a coma is different. -- comma is different.

not a comma was changed. the smoke and mirrors was, don't listen to what i say, don't watch my hands as i do this magic, go and read the final rule. there was not a single change. there was an accounting gimmick. americans understand accounting gimmicks. that's why we're in the fiscal mess we're in. because washington likes them. this time the accounting gimmicks attempts to override americans' religious conscience and you can't do that. americans understand there's no such thing as free anything. somebody pays for it. and if the government is going to mandate that an employer provide insurance that includes provisions that conflict with their conscience beliefs, this is an accounting gimmick to. say that somebody else has to pay for the rest of that insurance policy that you provided.

every american knows that's not true. we know specifically for larger institutions that self-insure they are the insurer. there is no other insurance company. large bodies and if they happen to be religious self-insure, you will now force them to violate their conscience or pay $2,000 -a-person fine. i want to thank the representative from colorado for bringing this point up tonight. reminding the american public to pay attention to the debate, go look at that final rule and understand we are in the same situation where we were last week, with a violation of religious liberty that we should never tolerate and i thank you for yielding me the time. . mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman for his comments. couple of organizational things, very quickly here because of the keen interest to address this important issue, we are going to ask for a four-minute

time frame for each speaker. and there are several that i need to take out of the rough order that we have to accommodate tight schedules. so as mr. kelly comes forward i'll read a quote here from john f. contendy. let me read what he said about conscience. i would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the first amendment guarantee of religious liberty. what a powerful statement. i would like to now have -- yield four minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. mr. kelly: mr. speaker where i come from in western pennsylvania, there is an old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. and i think that my colleagues and i tonight come before you and come before this house to talk about some very egregious action that this administration has just taken.

and for the president who at one time was a professor of constitutional law and who knows better, he relies on constitutional convenience, when it's convenient, he follows the constitution. when it is not, he follows what he wants to do. and he looks upon us and says, you know, you just didn't get it. maybe i didn't use the right words to frame it and takes policy that is horrible policy, policy that is against our first amendment, policy that restricts our free speech and freedom of religion and puts the burden not being able to choose and he says let me take what i just told you, put it in a different box little different colored paper and colored bo and and this is what i'm going to use. that is not accommodating. now, i'm a roman catholic and i

would tell you for many months and years i have wondered why our religious leaders, people we look to for spiritual leaders have taken a back seat and let things happened that they should not have let happen. the bishop from erie and my priest from butler have spoken out and they have spoken very clearly about this violation and they have articulated much better than any of us have can. they have done it from the pulpit, radio and tv. the american people now know what is going on. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice shame on me? no way. we are here tonight because we have had enough of an administration that continues to trample on our constitution, marchingalize it and use it when

it's convenient. and when it doesn't meet its means, we talk about a constitution that was well written at the time and doesn't address the needs of today. and i would tell you the needs of today have nothing to do with the rights of the american people, freedom of american people. in speech or religion but has to do with an administration that find it onerous for their own agenda. and i hope all americans not just christians, are outraged by this attempt to violate our first amendment rights. i thank the gentleman. i yield back. mr. lamborn: there are a number of freshman, including, mr. kelley who are making a big impact after 13 honts of service. another one ms. burkle from the state of new york.

ms. buerkle: i thank you. this is a first amendment issue. i stand here tonight as a hement care professional someone who is vitally aware of the protection of conscience rights and this h.h.s. rule is the largest instrution that we have ever seen from the federal government on our rights of conscience. every american, every american must understand what an insult this is to our constitutional rights. i wanted to take this opportunity, mr. speaker, to challenge our media as they listen to this debate, and it is a debate that really encompasses so many unlikely bedfellows, woy say. you see liberals conservatives catholics and christians and jews coming together in an

outrage because our first amendment rights have been assaulted, have been attacked by this administration, but i would challenge the media to not let the red herring that this administration continues to throw out there. mr. speaker this is not about contraception or not about women's health. this is not about catholicism but protecting the fundamental right that so many of us have. we mentioned the reasons that people came to this country and they continue to want to come to this country because we ensure that you will not be persecuted for your beliefs for your religious beliefs that's the bedrock. that's why there is outrage over this h.h.s. rule. this rule has not been changed. do not be fooled by the smoking

mirrors. this rule remains an assault on our first amendment rights. i plead with america i plead with the media to understand what's at stake in this debate and i thank my colleague for this opportunity and i yield back. mr. lamborn: i thank the lady for her comments and there is one other person who has a strong struggling issue from the state of kansas, representative huelskamp. mr. huelskamp: it's a pleasure to stand with you and a pleasure to be here, but it is a real shock to see what is happening today. i would agree with the comments of my colleague and many others. i must admit -- and i guess in today's environment, it is an admission. i must admit i'm roman

catholic. but this issue, this issue is not about what faith you call your own. this issue is about a religious freedoms of which ever we choose. who would have thought of an administration that would identify and select a certain group and say we're going to violate their conscience. we knew this was coming. we knew this was coming. and reminded of a few quotes that i've heard in the last few months actually in the last few years, famous quote that was used previous yousely that we have to -- previously that we have to find out what is in this bill. we found out many nings that didn't know in it.

when this was debated on the senate side, there was an attempt by republican leadership that said make certain this doesn't happen. this was anticipated. by this administration. i believe, to attempt to violate the conscience of millions and millions of americans. and yet they continue forward. we fools also found out once we read the bill and passed, this administration h.h.s. secretary began to give waivers and said it applies to some groups and not others. if you happen to know the secretary or happen to be from the right district or work for the right company, you can find a waiver. and i remember speaking out about it. what i deposit anticipate was having to ask for a waiver to actually have your beliefs still hode those in america. who would have thought we would

have ask permission from the united states and permission from the h.h.s. sick. that's shocking. and i mention i'm a catholic and pope benedict said, freedom of religion is the most american of all freedoms. and i think about to the thousands of folks that have served in this chamber who have walked up here and fought for our freedoms and spoke on the floor for them. they would have never guessed if you are of a particular group that disagree with this administration would you have to pay a fine to actually disagree with them. congressman, you have showed -- real civil rights leader martin luther king one of his quotes in justice anywhere is a threat

to justice everywhere. that just didn't apply to his beliefs. he believed his beliefs applied to all americans. what is shocking to me is that we have a president who disregards basic american freedoms and is willing somehow -- it's shocking to me he is willing to risk his election to alienate americans to what he is attempting to impose. that's what we expect from his health care plan. it is government control. as the attorney general from virginia it's not about health care, the issue is about liberty and that's what we are finding about right here. i call about kathleen sebelius, reach deep down into your soul and think about your next election because we know this road back, it's about the next

election. but we don't care about the next election. americans care about their freedoms and liberties. and i thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention. we have been fighting this on many routes and it is critical and i thank you for your efforts and hopefully we will recall those words that this is a threat to justice. mr. lamborn: any chance to kathleen sebelius will issue waivers to religious organizations not just to labor unions who are the main ones? mr. huelskamp: that is picky, who gets to believe what. and as the previous colleagues talked about immigrants who came to this country, came here for this particular reason to avoid paying a fine for what they believe and that is what we are being fossed to do.

do we get permission from the president? do we get a waiver. how do we get an accommodation? how do we balance? anywhere in the constitution, we are going to balance and the first amendment is very clear and the freedom to believe in the god as we choose. and i appreciate and thank you for that. i'll do this, let's ask for a waiver in everybody in america to get a waiver to believe what we believe. i ask for that as well. thank you, congressman, for your leadership. and we will continue to join you in this effort. mr. lamborn: thank you. you have been a great addition to the newer members of congress. an excellent addition. among those who are having scheduling conflicts unfortunately is me. i have a committee that is meeting right now who is having a markup and recorded votes on amendments and passage of bills

out of committee so i have to leave in just a moment. as much as i so badly i wish i could finish up this discussion and hearing the comments that have been moving to me so far i have to depart, so i'm going to yield back my time to the chair and ask that he subsequently recognize the gentleman from california, representative lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california will control the remainder of the hour. lunln -- mr. lungren: might i make an inquiry as to how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 26 minutes. mr. lungren: i thank the speaker. at this time i would recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. and we are trying to keep it to four minutes a piece. but that's the time we have. mr. nunnelee: i thank the

gentleman from california for your leadership in this area. thank you mr. speaker. religious freedom in america is under attack. not from some outside source, but from within. and if we've learned anything from history, we should have learned that great civilizations are a greater risk at destroying themselves from within then he ever are from any outside peril. freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our society. in 1789 when james madison and the rest of the framers of our constitution were crafting that great document, their genius created the concepts of separation of powers checks and balances, limited government. however, when that document was presented to the states, the people said that with all of its

genius, that document was inadequate. . it failed to guarantee individual rights. so in order to establish the government of the united states of america as we know it today our ancestors insisted that our nation adopt the bill of rights, 10 amendments to the constitution that would guarantee rights to every individual. that bill of rights begins congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. yet the obama administration has displayed a disturbing contempt for the religious liberty guaranteed in that bill of rights. the message coming out of him seems to be, it's ok to have religious beliefs as long as

you can find their practice -- confine their practice to your church. they just don't get it. they don't seem to grasp the fact that our faith is part of who we are. we don't check it in and check it out when when we walk into our places of would beship -- worship. we take it with us everywhere we go. now, defenders of this health mandate are attempting to play a clever political game, they're attempting to frame this as a narrow debate between women's rights and the catholic church. the truth is this is about an outrageous idea that the state can force citizens of this nation to violate their religious beliefs by some decree or regulation. and that some bureaucrat at health and human services can violate constitutional rights. all americans as individuals, not just religious institutions,

should be free to purchase and provide health insurance that does not violate their religious beliefs. this principle is so basic that it's tragic that we even have to introduce legislation to reaffirm it. but it's the position of the obama administration that's put us in the position we're in today. that's why i'm a proud co-sponsor of the rights of conscience act and i urge its swift passage. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for his comments and now it's my pleasure to yield time to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. and it's a privilege to be here, to stand on the house floor with my colleagues this evening and discuss an issue that is facing americans today, that really we should not be standing here talking about. we face tough economic times, but instead we have to be

dealing with the administration's rule that he is implementing that came out of the health care bill passed several years ago. this is a freedom of religion issue. this issue is not about birth control, this issue is about government control. and i'd like to share a couple of comments, couple of lines from our founding documents that i think are very important. i think one thing that has happened over the past couple of years that americans have become more familiar with our constitution, because i believe the constitution has the answers for the problems that we face today. mr. speaker, i'd like to share this particular line that was actually influenced by the bill of rights and the first amendment. all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion

according to the dictates of their conscience. that was found -- that is found in the virginia declaration of rights. the first amendment says this congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. mr. speaker, i come to the floor today and i believe that this is a threat to our freedoms. this ruling has put many americans, i stand here as a baptist, along with my colleagues from many different denominations, who believe that this is a threat to our freedom of religion. you can imagine the outcry if the president told journalists what stories they could write? this is no less appalling.

the president's decision to force individuals of faith to violate their conscience is a blatant assault on the first amendment. one of the things that is so foundational here in america is that we are a people of strong convictions. we are people of faith. and what this rule does is it puts the real american safety net at risk. we have so many faith-based organizations, charities, people that organize to help those who are in need. and they are the backbone of the social safety net of this country. and i believe that this rule interferes with those core beliefs and that h.h.s. has jeopardized the mission that so many americans have to help people across this country. mr. speaker, i'd like to share this quote by one of our famous and well respected founders and

forefathers of our great country and it is daniel webster who said this in addressing americans about preserving the principles of the constitution, he said, it is hardly too strong to say that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. there are men in all ages who mean to govern well but they mean to govern. they promise to be good masters but they mean to be masters. end quote. mr. speaker, i'd submit to you today that this administration past congresses, have good intentions, but they are beginning to control and to rule the people in ways that violate our constitutional freedoms and our liberties. so i want to thank the gentleman for organizing this special order. because i believe that the people must know that this is a

rule that will infringe on their first amendment rights. last quote i'd like to read tonight is a quote from thomas jefferson. thomas jefferson says, all tyranny needs to gain a foot hold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. i ask the american people to voice their opinion to voice their freedom and to let their member of congress know what this ruling does to the freedom of religion. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for his comments. it's now to a pleasure on my part to be able to recognize for his words mr. walberg of michigan. walwal thank you. i appreciate the -- wall wall thank you. i appreciate the -- mr. walberg: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to stand with my colleagues tonight to speak on an important issue. it was an amazing experience for me this morning to be part of the oversight and government reform committee and to have a hearing where we had numerous members of religious

organizations, including leaders in the catholic, the jewish, the protestant faiths, in front of us. men who were appealing for rights that should be taken for granted in this country, the rights of religious freedom. it brought back to me the thoughts that i experienced just a year ago almost this very day. when i was in israel and had the opportunity to hear from the prime minister of israel as he spoke with glowing admiration for america. he talked about the religious liberty that was unlike any other place in the world in israel today based upon, as he said, the experience the value and the documents of america and its foundings. and so today to hear our religious leaders speaking for their religious liberty was unreal. those documents that the prime

minister of israel referred to going back to the declaration of independence where it says, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. liberty. and our first amendment has been quoted numerous times tonight. the beginning of the bill of rights congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. these truly sacred documents documents that we live by, at least we should, documents that we can carry and quote from are under serious attack today. these documents of liberty, liberty not just for organizations but for individuals, not just for churches but for parishioners who have businesses, who are body shop owners, who are lawyers, who are doctors and have employees that they want to care for we have today a

justice as a supreme court who recommends to a country looking for a constitution to write, not america's -- to write not america's constitutions but constitutions of other countries. unbelievable. and attorneys, labor attorneys poo-pooing the opposition to a tax on our own constitution as constitutional niceties. this is not america that we understand. and now the attack on the constitutional right of religious conscience, the foundational liberty upon which this great land was birthed. our churches and our individuals. we would do well to listen. mr. speaker, to the warnings of our framers and founders. and with this i close, jonathan witherspoon, a minister who signed the declaration of independence, said a republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty. john adams followed by saying,

liberty lost once is liberty lost forever. we would do well also to take the heed of enemy voices who desire the destruction of america and its liberty less we unwittingly follow and fall into their advice. the advice such as this that was said america is like a healthy body and its resistance -- its resistance is three-fold. its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life. if we undermine these three areas, america will collapse from within. joseph stalin. may god grant us mr. speaker, wisdom so that our president, this congress and all of america will never let these words be a prophecy fulfilled. and i yield back. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for his powerful words. and at this time i would recognize the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe.

mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the gentleman for holding this special order tonight. mr. speaker, as a young man i swore an oath to protect and uphold the constitution of the united states when i was sworn into the united states military. literally millions of young men and women have sworn that oath, shed blood precious blood to protect individual liberties and freedoms that we take for granted in this nation. and now no longer, due to the actions of this president can we take those for granted. and i want to associate my remarks tonight with my colleagues' who so eloquently have spoken. once again it tells us why government should be out of these individual decisions that we make. we passed almost two years ago, and mr. lungren remembers this very well, on this house floor we debated this health care bill that now mandates not only what

we should buy an essential benefits package, but what's in it and how it's administered. how ridiculous that is. individuals have that right and should maintain that right and that freedom to do that. our government was established to protect rights and conscience for all americans, not just some americans. but all americans. no government department should have the power to force people to violate their conscience. since 1973 health care and coverage providers, and i'm a physician, i'm a gynecologist, were granted protections in the law to follow their conscience. this rule that was passed and has now been -- will be the law of the land, cancels those protections. cancels those protections. this h.h.s. rule will force individuals and organizations to

violate deeply held moral convictions with no opportunity to opt out. no opportunity to opt out. protection of the rights of conscience is a fundamental american principle, a fundamental liberty. not a marginal consideration to be subordinated or ignored because of federal mandates. it's guaranteed in this book right here, the constitution, the freedom of religion is the first one mentioned in the first amendment of the bill of rights. h.h.s. rule gives people, me, a provider, an impossible choice. either break the law or violate your beliefs. this rule is causing buyers' remorse in some who previously supported the health care reform bill former representative kathy dahlkemper recently said

i would never have voted for the final version of the bill if i expected the obama administration to force catholic hospitals and universitys to pay for contraception. christians cannot distinguish between purely religious activities and provisions of health care. because of this rule and because of this president, many in -- many may have no choice but to stop providing coverage for their employees and providers like myself and others with a conscience clause may have to stop providing care. this is not a choice that any of us should have to make. it's a freedom guaranteed by over 200 years of blood shed for this nation and mr. speaker the american people cannot stand by and let this happen. mr. lungren, i appreciate very much you holding this special order tonight and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. lungren: for purposes of filing a report, i recognize the

gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, sir. i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: che clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to acompmy house resolution 554 to accompany the bill h.r. 3630 to provide incentives for the creation of jobs and other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and orered printed. mr. lungren: now it is my privilege to share the last nine minutes with the gentleman from new jersey, the man i call the william wilber force of this congress, the jell from new jersey, mr. chris smith. mr. smith: i thank my great friend from california for his leadership. former attorney general of california, one of the most incisive and wonderful debaters in the house of representatives and a great champion of life. mr. speaker, president obama's

slick public relations offensive this past friday contained neither an accommodation nor a compromise nor a change in his coercion rule. it was instead a pernicious attack on religious freedom. the obama final rule promulgated on friday is an unprecedented government attack on the conscience rights of real scrouse entities and anyone else, and i rhett repeat that anyone else who for moral reasons cannot and will not pay for abortion inducing drugs or contraception an sterilization procedures in their private insurance plans mr. obama is arrogantly using the coercive power of the state to force faith-based charities, hospitals, and schools to conform to his will at the expense of conscience. mr. obama's means of coercing compliance, rues now fines of $2,000 per employee when

faith-based organizations refuse to comply and they will refuse to comply. and that will impose incalculable harm on millions of children educated at faith based schools and impose harm on the poor, sick, disabled, and frail elderly who are served with such extraordinary compassion and dignity by faith-based entities. catholic charities ememployee -- employs 70,000 employees. they will be hit with a fine by the obama administration of $140 million per year. that's the fine. that's the penalty. $2,000 per employee. notre dame has about 5,000 employees. that will be a $10 million fine on notre dame and so it goes, these faith-based organizations. let me just say to my colleagues vocal apologists of

the obama coercion rule say over and over again that the institute of medicine panel, that reportedly researched and did reck men the coercion rule were somehow independent. nothing could be further from the truth. journalist katherine jean lopez reported the human life international organization looked into the members of the panel, if you stack the panel, you get a predetermined outcome. they found it was packed with pro-abortion activists. angela diaz, member of physicians for reproductive choice in hell. paula johnson, chairwoman of the planned parenthood league of massachusetts. magna peck, also on the board of directors or was, of planned parenthood nebraska, and council bluffs. she was chair of the board and vice chair. if you stack an i.o.m. or any

other panel you will get a predetermined outcome and so they did. finally, the respect for conscience rights act reasserts and restores conscience rights by making absolutely clear that no one no one can be compelled to subsidize so-called services in private insurance plans contrary to their reals you beliefs or moral convictions. this legislation must be on the floor soon and i hope the american people realize how important this bill offered by mr. fortenberry is to conscience rights in america. i yield back to my good friend, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds members to avoid personalities with regard to the president such as accusations of arrogance. mr. lungren. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for his comments and thank him for his leadership on many, many issues of human rights, not only in the united

states but around the world. i was astounded when i heard the comments of the leader of the minority party in the house of representatives just several days ago when she referred to those who are concerned about this decision by the president of the united states and the secretary of h.h.s. as using religious liberty as an excuse. what an insult to those men an women of good faith who have expressed their concern about how this will require them to either violate their consciences or pay fines in tribute to the federal government. interestingly enough, alex de tocqueville said this about catholics -- american catholics are faithful to the observance of their religion, nevertheless they constitute the most republican and most democratic class of citizens which exist in the united states. although this fact may surprise

some observers at first, the causes by which it is occasioned may easily be discovered by reflection. what he suggested was the consciences of catholics who utilize their consciences to bring to the public debate did not undermine america it fortified america. we've crossed this bridge before. unfortunately, those who claim to be republicans in the 1800's led the fight against men and women of conscience who happened to be catholics this caused abraham lincoln to say these words in a letter to joshua speed in 1855. as a nation, we began by declaring that all men are created equal. we now know -- we now practically read it all men are created equal except negros. when the know-nothings get control, it will read all men are created equal except negros and foreigners an catholics.

what did it mean? the know-nothings feared that catholics would bring their conscience and values of faith to the public debate. we've been across this bridge before. we should not accept it it is not just catholics, it is men and women of all religious beliefs and even those of no religious beliefs who understand that a government that commands that you do something against your conscience is a government that can basically take anything away from you and in this case, perhaps the most precious thing there is in you. your faith. we cannot let it stand. it is a question of the culture of america, the tradition of america, the first amendment to the constitution of america. this is a serious debate because it questions whether

anyone anybody in government, can basically tell you that you must check your religious values at the door. interestingly enough, just a week and a half ago, i was present when i heard the president speak at the national prayer breakfast and say he does not and we do not and we cannot check our religious values at the door. that's precisely what this edict, and that's what it is, this edict does. we ought to understand. we speak not just for catholics. we speak not just for christians. we speak not just for jews, for muslims, for hindus, for people of faith and for those who have no faith, we speak for all americans. in understanding that the first amendment is not made up of mere words, it is made up of first principles. we cannot allow first principles to be cast aside. that's why we must stand in unity against this rule this

unprincipled, this unlawful, this unconstitutional rule that has no basis in fact, has no basis in the constitution, and has no basis in the culture -- culture of this country, properly understood. i thank the gentleman for his contribution, i thank all for their contribution i ask, mr. speaker, unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order this evening. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. with -- mr. lungren: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the

minority leader. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, thank you. my name is keith ellison, i will be claiming the hour and speaking on behalf of the progressive caucus. got a few housekeeping things to do while we set up, we'll be right there.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, thank you for the time. my name is keith ellison. i want to thank you for the time to talk about the progressive caucus, the progressive congressional caucus is that caucus in congress that comes together to talk about the most important values that our country is founded on. ideas like fairness, inclusion, prosperity for all, protecting our world and environment that we live in. the progressive caucus can be found, talking about civil and human rights, striving for an economy that's fair and inclusive and has shared benefits and responsibilities for everybody. the progressive caucus is that caucus in congress that will stand up for peace and diplomacy and also will make the case for a -- for the human

rights of all people. we bring you the progressive message to illustrate what's at stake in america today and i'm very pleased that i'm joined by my good friend from the great state of illinois, january schakowsky. we're going to bring the progressive message tonight and just talk a little bit about the values that we share. you know i want to just set up a question i have for you, congresswoman schakowsky, because we've been dealing with this transportation bill over the last several days and will be up until the week of february 27. one of the things about it that i found most galing is that one of the -- galling is that one of the ways the republican majority intends to pay for the transportation bill is by charging federal employees a fee, really, a tax, on their retirement and then using the money that they're going to gain by -- to pay for their

transportation bill. when i think about people who are federal employees, i'm thinking of people take care of our veterans, the nurses at the v.a. i'm thinking of people who make sure our roads and parks are safe. i'm thinking about fellow employees who make sure our water and air is clean. i just want to ask you, do you think it's fair to sort of go after federal employees working people to try to pay for this transportation budget we've been talking about over the last few days? i yield to the gentlelady from illinois. ms. shah cusky: i thank you for that question, for leading this hour and this important discussion. no, in fact our colleagues in the majority want to pay for the legislation in the transportation bill but what they want to continue to do is to refuse to touch a single hair on the head of millionaires and billionaires

and they stand firm and -- in their defense of the big oil companies and the corporations who ship their jobs overseas, and instead of asking the wealthiest americans to contribute a little bit more, they want to ask federal workers. so instead of going to the 1%, they want to ask people who are solidly in the 99% to pay the price. because the federal employees are hardworking middle class americans who work for the federal government all across this country. they're not just in washington. in fact, only about 30% of federal employees are in washington. of course some of them work in our office and they work in this house of representatives. and we all represent federal workers. so who are they? and you mentioned a few.

but there are also those benefits specialists who help our seniors get their social security and medicare benefits. and they're the law enforcement professionals that defend our borders and our ports and our skies and us when we're here in the capital. mr. ellison: is the f.b.i. agent who is protecting us from everything from terrorism to drugs to guns, are these people federal employees? i yield back to the gentlelady. ms. schakowsky: those are called federal employees. and as are the capital police and computer and network specialists who spend their days that we're safe from cyberattacks and there are medical and scientific researchers looking for cures for devastating diseases. nurses and doctors who take care of our wounded warriors. there are the men and women who make sure the food supply is safe and that our water is clean enough for our children to

drink. and the hardworking support staff. you know, i just lost my office, i was having my trash and recycling taken away from my office. those are all federal employees. and they are among the -- there are 423,000 federal employees who earn less than $50,000 a year. and 48% of them are women but 60% of the employees earning less than $50,000 a year are women. and they are the people who have seen their pay frozen for two years while health care and other costs are going up. mr. ellison: if i may just ask the gentlelady a question. so you mean to tell me and the american people and the speaker tonight that not only is this transportation bill proposing to

cut into and basically tax federal employees' retirement benefits but they've already had a freeze on top of this? ms. schakowsky: for two years and that's about $30 billion a year in cuts. so we're talking about, they've already given up really -- us really about $60 billion from a normal increase in wages, just to pay for the cost of things going up. and everybody knows that the costs of food and gasoline and those kinds of things are going up and still we aren't asking millionaires or they aren't, the republicans who propose these cuts these additional contributions from federal employees, they're not asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share. mr. ellison: i've brought a document here with me today. i had a great meeting with some

federal employees the other day and what they wanted to know, they said, explain it to me g.o.p. one person, paul here says, i earn less than $35,000 a year. explain it to me g.o.p., how cutting my pay creates jobs? this person, paul he represents the toby hanna army depot workers them. do something really important. and then another federal employee 12% of my salary i earn caring for veterans goes to my retirement. explain it to me g.o.p., how cutting my retirement puts people to work. that's what teresa has to say and she represents nurses at the minnesota v.a. hospital. and then here's eric young and he represents correction officers in miami and he says, i pay more than $9,000 a year for my family health insurance. explain it to me g.o.p., how

cutting my take-home pay lowers unemployment. these are the faces of federal employees. you know, i don't -- sometimes when we talk about, just cut the federal employees, nameless, faceless, who are these people? but as you pointed out they are people who really improve the quality of our lives every single day, people who protect us here in the capital, but also who protect our veterans, who work in our federal prisons and who are army depot workers. this is the face of federal workers. and i just think it's fair to say that they deserve somebody to speak up for them as they put their lives on the line to protect all of us. ms. schakowsky: let me also say this you know, some argue that oh well it's such a curby job to work for the federal government that actually federal employees make more money than in the private sector. let me explain that. people who earn in the lower wage jobs for the federal government women actually make

more working for government than they do in the private sector because in the private sector they make about 70 cents on the dollar. and thank goodness the federal government has more equity in what it pays. the same is true for minorities who earn much less than white men do in the private sector. but when you work for the federal government you have certain protections and certain equity that we've all supported and so they make more money. but when you get to the higher wage jobs, working for the national -- the institutes of health or the higher skilled jobs, in fact those workers who worked for the federal government could make more in the private sector but they have made a decision to help our government, to help our country

by working in the public sector. so when they say some federal workers earn more, i say, god bless them, because we don't discriminate like many in the private sector do and we wish that the private sector would not discriminate in pay against women and minorities. it's not as if they should go out there and earn less money. mr. ellison: you know, the gentlelady would yield, but i hear, when i hear them say, oh, well, the federal workers earn more money than the people who pay their salary in forms of taxes, and they say this derisively and in a very smug way and i think to myself, you know aren't we a country that should value public service? people working in the public interests for the public good? are we saying that -- does bread cost less for them? is gasoline cheaper for them? no it's not. and thank heavens that the federal government can pay

people fairly and that we don't have these vast disparities in pay between men and women for federal workers. basically the protections that people have in working for the federal government don't always prevail in the private sector and that accounts for some of the disparities. and then of course as you just pointed out, people at the higher income level, they could be just as well and be much more handsomely if they were to work elsewhere. ms. schakowsky: it's estimated that those individuals could probably make as much as 26% more working in the private sector but they want to contribute to the common good and work for all of us. you know, and you would think with these suggestions about making in order to pay for a transportation bill or any other bill that we ask the federal workers to contribute more, i mean, take a look around, i say to my colleagues.

look around us, everywhere we go in this capitol, in our office building, we are looking at federal employees that would -- without whom this place would simply not run. we are dependent on them, we rely on them and for good reason because we can count on them. they are contributing often as much as anyone here, to making our country the great country that it is. and working in the capitol of the united states of america. with enormous pride, i might add. mr. ellison: you know, i ask the gentlelady, when did it happen that working in the public interest became, in the minds of some people, something less than all of our work to do? ms. schakowsky: you know, i think there has been a real demonization of all public sector workers lately and that's why i'm so glad that tonight we're able to put a face on these individuals and say who are they? what kind of work are they

really doing? but beyond that, to say, really? this is where we want to get the sacrifice? we're not going to ask one thing more of the oil companies or the gas companies or the businesses that are making record profits and taking those jobs overseas and outsourcing them and getting a tax break for it? or we're not asking the millionaires and the billionaires in this country who have actually benefited from the work of public employees of federal employees to get what they need in order to get ahead? we're not asking them to pay anymore? no, we're going to take it out of the hides of middle class workers, if they're lucky. some of them are down at the lower end. middle class workers, middle class families to pay for -- to make the sacrifice. and pay for more their pensions. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady will yield, i actually see this

as another wedge. you know, we talk about the wedges. we talk about some folks often associated with the right wing conservative philosophy who make arguments that would divide people who were born here versus immigrants gays versus straight, all these kind of wedges. all this kind of wedge stuff. but now this is in the wedge federal employee workers very sur-- versus private sector workers and it sort of seems like they're trying to engender a certain amount of resentment among private sector workers for public sector workers. but the truth is as you just pointed out, when are we going it talk about the people at the very tip top who have been compensated beyond imagination in the oil and gas sector, in the drug sector, in the health care sector, who have been making private equity, all these folks who have been making so much money on wall street?

when do we ask them to do more? i mean, look, -- ms. schakowsky: actually, we did, didn't we in the people's -- mr. ellison: yeah, we sure did. ms. schakowsky: that the progressive caucus introduced and that balances the budget, cuts the deficit cuts the debt. but doesn't try and take it out of the hide of middle class people in the same way that we see from our colleagues across the aisle. i know included in that budget is my fairness in taxation act that says that people starting at $1 million ought to pay a higher tax bracket. ratcheting up to people who make $1 billion a year. and there may be somebody at home saying, oh, nobody makes $1 billion a year. oh, yes they do. mr. paulson made $5 billion $5 billion in 2010.

and, you know, he probably paid at a rate that may have been lower than his secretary or secretaries. i don't know. mr. ellison: well, you know, i'm glad that you raised this point about the people's budget because that really is the point of the progressive message. you know to talk to the speaker and the american people about there being an alternative in our congress, not everybody is carried away with this philosophy that federal workers need to pay more and get less and actually there are a body of folks in the democratic caucus and particularly the progressive caucus who really want to see more shared way of paying for the needs of our country. and we recently had a hearing in which we talked about jobs and we had a group called the patriotic millionaires who was there. and this is the interesting

thing about your particular tax proposal. a lot of people who are making a lot of money agree that they should pay more. and i find this to be very interesting because, you know americans do come, patriotic americans do come from various income strata and i think it's commendable for people at the top end, the people who might pay a higher rate under your bill, who say, yeah, you know, tax us more because we believe that there should be a good public school system, we believe the water should be clean we believe that federal workers should be fairly comment say thed. we have enough -- compensated. we have enough. and what drives us is not the acquisition of more but the idea of creating good products and services for americans which we charge for of course, but at the end of the day, everybody has to do their fair share. . i thank you for offering the buffett rule before there was a

buffett rule, before we were talking about a buffett rule, you were out in front. ms. schakowsky: and one of the themes the president has underscored over and over again, that everybody should get a fair, not a fair shake, a fair shot and everybody pay their fair share. everybody play by the same rules. and so, when we talk about where should the money come from for important things like transportation, of course there's many flaws in that bill, you know, they take mass transportation, mass transit out of the funding stream. but trpping, i think, has always before been a bipartisan issue and of course we want to be able to pay -- to be able to pay for that and it creates a lot of jobs, but everybody uses the roads, they use the transit

system they benefit, and so everybody, excuse me, needs to pay their fair share, what they are able to pay to contribute to the common good. but the president has talked about having each other's back. it's kind of a basic philosophy. we're all in this together. not we're all in this alone. but that's one of the -- the early ideas in america. you know. you picture, now the covered wagons and the rugged individualism of those people crossing, but they were together in a row. each one, a rugged individual but all of them making sure that they helped to take care of each other so they can get across safely. i think that's the vision, we're a combination of individual freedom, strong individualism, but we're -- we

also understand that we all do better when we all do better. mr. ellison: as my hero, paul wellstone, famously said, we ail do better when we all do better. but those rugged individuals crossing the prairie when they put up a barn, they didn't do it alone did they? they had a parn raising. we do what we do best, together. whatever we can do individually we have the freedom to do that. i am concerned about a shift -- about shifting political winds which ignore the idea that we are in this together. that the road and the transportation system is a common -- is part of our commonwealth. something that's a benefit to us all and we should all pay for it. which is why i was particularly concerned about this transportation bill, h.r. 7, for the first time in about 50

years the house is going to consider a partisan transportation package. republicans breaking the historical tradition of bipartisan action to rebuild infrastructure, create jobs an strengthen our economy. this proposal, h.r. 7 would cut about 550,000 american jobs cuts highway investments in 45 states and d.c. ms. schakowsky: everyone needs to hear that again. would cut -- mr. elson: the g.o.p. proposal cuts 550,000 american jobs, cuts highway investments in 45 states, bankrupts highway trust fund with a $78 billion shortfall, as you said, takes transit funding and puts it in a regular appropriation process, not in the stream of funding gets rid of bike paths, walking paths, the reviews are in and they agree the g.o.p. bill is bad for jobs. a good friend of mine, who happens to be a republican but

works for the obama administration, ray lahood, he said, quote, this is the most partisan transportation bill that i have ever seen, and he's seen a lot of them. he's your home boy from illinois right? ms. schakowsky: he is. mr. ellison: and it is the most anti-safety bill i have ever seen hollows out the number one priority, which is safety and hollows out the guts of the bill we was seen the last three years. it is the worst transportation bill i have seen in 35 years of public service. that's saying a lot. ms. schakowsky: that is saying a lot. as i said before, and as ray lahood was alluding to, as many differences as may have existed across the aisle, recognizing the importance of transportation for commerce, for business, for everyday americans getting to work, for linking our country together, for transportationing our

goods, democrats and republicans have always been able to sit down and together, craft a piece of legislation on transportation. and to come up with an equitable way to fund it. everyone has been able to agree. this time, not only the way the bill is funded, talking about putting the burden on public employees to help fund it but the elements of the bill itself. the fact that it's going to actually cost jobs. the transportation bill has always been the place where we have created jobs in our country. i think it is -- it's really shameful and i don't see that this piece of legislation is going to pass, but those who proposed it, i think, have made a serious miscalculation in every way. mr. ellison: now you know,

it's beyond my ability to comprehend that any american, any american, would do anything other than try to make sure everybody had enough, we had enough jobs for everybody who wanted to work and those jobs were well-paying, but i'll tell you, there are -- there have been polls out there on what americans think. this is not what i'm saying, this is what americans have said. half of americans believe that republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election. half. 55% believe that. and 44% believe other than that. now when you hear that this transportation bill is going to cut over half a million jobs it's difficult to go to americans and explain that that's not what they're doing. again, i'm not going to look into the inner recesses of anyone's heart. i don't know what people's motives are. but i do know that any bill,

when we have unemployment north of 8% which is going to cut jobs and has been a historic place where we created jobs, i think americans have reason to be suspicious and i think that -- i hope our republican majority would come and clarify what they're actually doing because like i just pointed out, half of americans believe that the republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election. ms. schakowsky: let me give you an example. we have seen the unemployment rate now drop to what is it 8.3%, and that's not good. but it's -- it's better we've seen it drop and we've seep 23 months now of private secor job growth every month -- private sector job growth every month, which is a great thing, a great record.

but, let everybody look at that chart. the orangey brown-y part is during the bush administration when the economic crisis first hit and then the blue is the -- during the obama administration. we see pretty steady increase, or decrease of unemployment and then you see, now we're above the line for many months and creating jobs. that increase in jobs -- a net increase in jobs. but if the republicans had not gone after public sector jobs, if there had not been the cut in public sector jobs, at the federal level as well as at the state level, because a lot of federal dollars were lost to the states, causing the layoffs of many teachers and

firefighters and policemen, public sector workers have to have been laid off we would have an unemployment rate of about 7.5%. if those cuts hadn't happened in the public sector. so you know, who is really for getting our economy going, putting people back to work, letting them be taxpayers rather than having to receive unemployment benefits. you know, which we better extend because people need them. they'd rather have a job. mr. ellison: absolutely. the gentlelady should note, i have this one chart up, i'd just like to let folks know, because what the question was "washington post" and abc asked the following statement president obama is making a good faith effort to deal with the country's economic problems but the republicans in congress are playing politics by

blocking its proposal -- his proposals and programs, or, president obut ma has not provided leadership on the economy and is just blaming republicans in congress for not doing his job. 53% of the people responded to the statement a, the first one. that is, president obama is making a good faith effort, republicans in congress are making -- are playing politics by blocking his proposals. i hope that republicans are reading this. they're in the looking good. the best thing for them to do is stop making proposals like the transportation bill, h.r. 7, which literally cuts squobs. the american people are watching this and quite frankly, i want us all to succeed. i don't want -- i don't think it's good for the american population to think that one party who is elected to promote the public interest, is doing something other than that in order to win an election. again, you know, this board here clearly shows that during

the -- when president bush was in, we had -- this is kind of red, this is kind of bleeding, the blue is going up, up, up, now above the line we have been adding 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth but the public sector job loss, as you pointed out is a drag on the economy and is hurting us. we need people to get to work. i i want -- i just want to ask the sexrealt a question, does a public sector paycheck offer less at the local grocery store when the person goes to buy groceries with the public sector paycheck? ms. schakowsky: that's a job and a paycheck uric take it to the grocery store and it resonates throughout the economy. but i'll tell you, it's a pinch when that wage and check is frozen for two years, people feel that. prices at the grocery store

still go up. and so that very same paycheck doesn't quite buy as much. and you know, there may be some lifestyle changes, maybe not such big things, but some little things, that add to the quality of life, that actually are federal -- our federal employees have had to do without because of the freeze. and then, they're asked now, in order to even pay for a transportation bill, to lose money out of their pension fund, to pay -- to have to pay more of their pension, which is their retirement fund. mr. ellison: i want to point out, you and i were talking about this chart, which shows that under the bush administration, the unemployment rate going up, us losing jobs, then the steady marge back the other way this chart shows that g.o.p.

proposals will eliminate up to 7.4 million jobs by 2016. if you look at the proposals the g.o.p. has been making, while they've been in the majority, the transportation bill h.r. 7 is but one example of job-killing they like to call stuff job killing, that's their frank luntz talking point, but they actually have, in actuality proposed job killing legislation. starting with h.r. 1. the economist the center for american progress, showed that it would cut $1 million, excuse me, a million jobs, repeeling health care reform we cut about two million g.o.p. budget cuts, that's the ryan budget cuts to the federal work force, the so-called jobs act, all the way down the line. this red is if they could have their way,