remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding. in the summer of 2011 as the country continued to see rising deficits, members of the congress knew that they had to do something about that in connection with the extension of what we call the debt ceiling which lets the country borrow money to pay its bills. as a part of that agreement, a large number of people from both parties voted for something that hasn't turned out very well. and it's called sequestration. this is a word that gets tossed around in this chamber. it is having a real and negative impact on the country. i just came from a hearing of the armed services committee where the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense told us that nine battle groups and three bomber groups of our air force and our navy planes have been grounded.

about 1/3 of the nation's air capacity isn't flying. across the country today, people who are on medicare, who need chemotherapy treatments from their doctors offices are finding that many doctors are declining to do chemo therapy treatments for cancer patients because of the cuts that take place in sequestration. i met earlier this week with employees of the naval sea systems engineering command in philadelphia whom i represent. they're looking at a 20% pay cut because of furloughs. these are real problems that are affecting real people. the house is opting to do nothing about this. nothing. the economists have told us that these ill-advised sequestration cuts will cost the economy 750,000 jobs this year.

mr. van hollen, my friend from maryland, has a bill and that bill says that we should save an amount of money equal to what the sequestration is allegedly saving and not have these cuts in cancer care and not have 1/3 of our air power grounded and not have federal employees take a 20% pay cut. mr. van hollen proposes that we cut subsidies to huge oil companies, that we cut subsidies to huge agri-businesses and we have people who make more than $1 million a year in income pay a slightly higher tax rate. we're not -- i understand, ladies and gentlemen of the house, that some would agree with that proposal and others would disagree with that proposal. that's democracy. we're not even taking a vote on that proposal. because the majority republican leadership has refused to put on this floor any piece of

legislation that would stop this harm to the country. and i know they'll say it's the president's fault or it's the senate's fault or it's whoever. i would ask for one more minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. andrews: i thank my friend and the speaker. i know there will be lots of back and forth about whose fault it was we got into this position. it's everyone's fault. there are people on both sides of the of the aisle that made a bad judgment on this. i'm one of them. but now we have a responsibility to fix it. and if the majority has an idea as to how we can fix this sequester problem, bring it to the floor. since the new congress took office on january 3 of this year, there has not been one hearing, not one markup, not within bill, not one -- not one bill, not one vote on fixing this problem that threatens the jobs of 750,000 americans. rather than this metaphysical legal debate we're about to have about the national labor

relations board, why don't we put on the house floor legislation that would create jobs in this country, postpone the sequester and deal with the problems that we taked -- talked about here today? the house is in session but it's missing in action when it comes to addressing the real problems of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the house to hold a vote on the paycheck fairness act. here we are in 2013, 2013, and yet women make 77 cents for every $1 made by a man for equal work. equal pay is not just a problem for women but for all american families who work hard to pay their bills. it's high time that this body take up the paycheck fairness

act which we will do so if we defeat the previous question. to discuss our proposal, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to the previous question. defeat of the previous question will allow the gentleman from colorado to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the paycheck fairness act. an act that addresses the persistent problem of unequal pay in our economy. it has now been 50 years since congress passed the equal pay quote, onfront the, serious and endemic problem of unequal wages in america. president john f. kennedy signed that bill into law to end what he said, and i quote, the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for

the same job. but that practice persists today. today, even though women are now half of the nation's work force, though they are still only paid 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men. this holds true across occupations and education levels. don't let anyone fool you or tell you that if you hold constant for education and other areas, that in fact there is no wage gap, it is just not true. a simple piece of legislation that says men, women, same jobs, same pay. those of white house serve in the congress, men and women all parts of the country, different education skills, a different skill set in general, we get paid the same amount of money, it's true in the military as well. this week we once again recognize equal payday. the day in 2013 when a woman's earnings for 2012 catch up to what a man made last year. unequal pay not only affects women, it affects families all

across the country. who are trying to pay their bills, to achieve the american dream. and are getting less take-home pay than they deserve for their hard work. everyone here grease that women should be paid the same -- agrees that women should be paid the same as men for their work. that's what this is about. same job, same pay. it is why president obama called for passage of the paycheck fairness act in his state of the union address in january. because it is time for us to come together, take the next steps to stop pay discrimination. mr. polis: i yield an additional 0 seconds. ms. delauro: -- 30 seconds. ms. delauro: let's bring equal pay law into line with other civil rights laws. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support the paycheck fairness act, end unequal pay for good. 50 years after the equal pay acts, it is finally time to give women the tools they need to ensure that they are paid what they deserve for the same day's work. what are we waiting for in this body? i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a typical liberal habit. do as i say, not as i do. i think, mr. speaker, that our colleague from connecticut should direct her comments to the white house. there's absolutely nothing to stop the white house from correcting the egregious pay differentials that exist there among the most liberal group in the country. ms. delauro: would the gentlewoman yield? ms. foxx: with that i reserve the balance of my time. ms. delauro: i didn't think you would yield. mr. polis: before further yielding i'm going to yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from connecticut to respond. ms. delauro: i would tell my colleague that in fact this body under different leadership than this current majority passed the paycheck fairness bill twice. it has to be done through the

congress, we have the ability to do it. i would suggest to my colleagues who on the other side of the aisle would like to talk about pay equity for women, that they sign the discharge petition. we have 200 members who were aboard. let's get this bill out of the committee, onto the floor, vote for it as we did in the past and get it to the senate so that it can be passed there as well. i thank the gentleman. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. delaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate my friend, good friend from colorado, for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, i also rise in support of the paycheck fairness act. mr. speaker, last year 58% of the college graduates in this country were women. right now in this country over 50% of the individuals that have college degrees are women. and last year in corporate america, 53% of new hires for positions that required a college degree were given to women. this reflects broad parity,

broad gender-based parity with respect to universities and with respect to entry-level positions in corporate america. however, mr. speaker, when we look at what's going on with respect to advancement, in other words, women's ability to climb or ascend the corporate ladder, we see a very different story emerging. even though 50% of the workers with college degrees in corporate america are women, when it came to promotions for managers, only 37% of those went to women. when it came to promotions to vice president, only 25% went to women. and when it came to promotions towards the executive committee level or the c-suit if you will, only 15% went to women. this reflects a significant thing that occurs to women as they advance in corporate america. mr. speaker, this is a very significant problem for this country and for every american. it's a problem if you care about our economy. because to have a productive and growth-oriented economy, we need diversity. diversity of ideas. and we cannot have that unless

women are represented in policymaking positions of corporations. this is a problem, mr. speaker, if we care about competitiveness because we cannot have a competitive economy if we make decisions based on gender and not based on merit. this is a problem, mr. speaker, if you care about working families. more than 50% of the bread winners in this country are women. if they're not -- if they don't have the same access that men do, it not only affects them but their children. and, mr. speaker, this is a problem if we care about women, if we care about young women in particular, and our daughters. and as a father of four daughters, i care very deeply about making sure my daughters have a view that they have equality of opportunity, rarledless of what career they chules. we have -- rarledless of whatever career they -- regardless of whatever career they chules. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to reiterate again, and my colleague from connecticut has left, that there is absolutely nothing that would prevent the white

house from giving equal pay to people in jobs there. we don't need new legislation to do that. it's certainly possible for the white house to do it now. and that is one of the most egregious situations of differential pay that exists in the country right now. and with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. polypoll -- mr. polis: i would respond to the gentlelady that most women in this country don't work for the white house. most women in this country work for private sector employers, public sector employers and others. we care about all women. we want to ensure paycheck fairness, same work, same pay. but somehow addressing this among a handful of women in the white house hardly addresses the real needs of american families, where women are across our country, in colorado, in california, north carolina and texas, are earning 77 cents on the dollar. it's unfair, as my colleague mr. delaney pointed out, it

doesn't enhance america economic competitiveness, it hurts us as a country. to have pay based on bias rather than merit, and it's the wrong way to go. president obama needs this body to act and pass the paycheck fairness act for us to be able to make sure that pay discrimination cannot endure in this country. with that i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is ecognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and to my colleagues and friends who are managing this legislation. we're in the judiciary committee passing something called the reins act because our friendses on the other side of the aisle don't believe that the president is om nip tent. frankly, as my good friend from colorado said, the president doesn't control the bus drivers nd school, if you will, school

aides and nurses aides and doesn't control the secretaries or doesn't control the construction workers who happen to be women. they don't control those -- or the office workers who happen to be women. many of my constituents who get up every morning, i saw one young woman, mr. polis, get up, get on a bus, a city bus, drop her child off at the school, really do a marathon dash to the school in order for the bus to make a u-turn, not a school bus but a city bus, to get on that bus, to track all the way across to get to her job. i can assure you that she is not getting probably equal pay for equal work because that is the dilemma that we have. so i support ordering the previous question and voting no so that we can move forward and do the right thing. and that just compounds my reason for coming to oppose this rule on the preventing greater uncertainty in labor

management relations act because it's a complete opposite. i would call it something else but i'm going to restrain myself. it is the ridiculous, h.r. 1120, because in actuality, my friends, what it does, it put a spear through the relationships that corporate and workers are able to have before the nlrb. the president has just finished appointing republicans and democrats, three democrats, two republicans, to do the work that brings businesses together for a fair assessment of their issue with working people. many resolutions of issues dealing with fair pay, dealing with working conditions, are done at the nlrb. do you know what this bill does? it puts a knife in the midst of -- i thank the gentleman. it puts a knife in the process that has been used by president bush 140 times. recess appointments to keep the work of the american people going forward. how backwards is that? i love my friends but we need

to put on the floor sensible gun legislation. we need to be talking about immigration reform. but to talk about blocking the nlrb from work, when president bush uses the same term, and the fact that a court ordered something, three other opinions say the recess opinions are legitimate. i ask my colleagues to vote down the rule, vote down the bill, stand with your working friends in america, stand with our unions, stand with making america great and stand with peace and reconciliation by a working nlrb. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentlewoman from north arolina. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i want to respond to my colleague from colorado saying that we have to pass a bill on pay equity to get the president to do the right thing. that just seems incomprehensible to me. i think the president should be our leader in this country and

should practice what he preaches, and so should our colleagues across the aisle. i think that the white house could show itself as a model for the rest of the country by paying down the white house the same as the men are being paid. i find it interesting that our colleagues have simply ignored what is happening in the white house and call for a bill to be do ed to make the president what is the right thing. in the past, our country and the people in our country have looked to our president to be a role model for us. with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. and i'd ask the gentleman if he's ready to close. mr. polis: i have one remaining speaker. ms. foxx: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i happen to have a

the gentlelady currently working with the rules committee sitting next to me now and she informs me she used to work for the white house, she's a female, she told me she was paid the exact same amount as her male colleagues. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i rise, mr. speaker, in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill which would prevent the national labor relations board from doing its job. the nlrb is tasked with protecting employee's rights to organize. by helping employees determine whether they want a union to represent their interests or not. nations with bargaining rights have middle classes. those that don't have bargaining rights don't have middle classes. the nlrb also investigates charges of unfair labor practices from both employees and employers, facilitates settlements rather than

expensive, lengthy litigation and enforces ruling by administrative law judges that provide orderly procedures to disrupt the prevention of flow of commerce due to a labor dispute. this bill before us is just another partisan ploy to undermine union workers and continues the republican war against the middle class. first, we had the ryan budget, which would put the burden of paying for two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of the seniors and our middle-class families. now, we have a bill that would result in violations of worker rights going unpunished, union elections not being certified and that would end recourse for workers who are wrongfully terminated. instead of letting the courts do their job, republicans want to take a big government action by preempting any decision from a higher court. this bill ignores the fact that republicans in the senate would not allow for a vote on any of the president's nominees and said publicly they just wanted to make the nlrb inoperative. it is ironic that when

president obama follows the path as president reagan and president bush did to appoint individuals, to carry out the work of our government, the republican house proposes a bill to completely undermine an independent federal agency. finally, studies show that the world's best performing economies and strongest middle classes have high union density and a high level of cooperation between labor and management. if republicans care about creating jobs and strengthening our economy, then why are they considering a bill that would take away a forum for employers and unions to work out their differences? mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i'll reserve, mr. speaker, and assume that the gentleman's ready to close. mr. polis: i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to yield myself the remainder of the

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, rather than addressing a number of issues that my colleagues have talked about here today, whether that issue is gas prices, whether it's equal pay for women, whether that's equal pay in the wuss or equal pay in main street america, that's something that's important to american families. whether it's balancing our budget, whether it's keeping taxes low and making sure that american businesses can go and create jobs, none of those things are being talked about here today. instead, we're bringing forward a bill that would be a bureaucratic nightmare all without protecting a single american worker, protecting a single american business. this bill was reported out of the education and work force

committee, which i serve on, without a single democratic vote and is being rushed to the floor for consideration at a time when we face record deficits, gas prices, have a crisis that we need to create jobs, and yet here we are debating a bill that goes nowhere, will go nowhere and if it did would destroy jobs in our country. i'd love to see us spending more time training and educating our work force, preparing kids for the jobs of our future, balancing the budget. we have limited floor time here in washington. every moment that we have is sponsored by the taxpayers of this great country. we owe it to those who elect us and those who pay for this body to be open, who pay for the very cameras which allow americans to watch us here today. we owe it to them to invest the limited time we have here wisely on critical issues of national importance, including making sure that women across

our country are paid the same amount for equal work. but, again, if we're going to have a discussion of the nlrb, let's at least do it in a serious way rather than trying to enshrine a d.c. district court decision into law. let's bring businesses and workers together, have a serious discussion that involves senate republicans, involves the s, administration to come up with a better framework that labor and management can work together to promote american competitiveness, to grow jobs and grow the middle class. that's not what today's process is about. these are just a few of the ways we can improve the broken process. unfortunately, again, it seems like the republicans have chosen none of the above. i urge a no vote on the rule, on the bill and i urge my colleagues to vote no and

defeat the previous question, and i urge a no vote on the rule. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, house republicans are committed to upholding the constitution and providing certainty for employers, employees and unions. the rule before us today provides for consideration of a bill that ensures that certainty by pressing pause on the national labor relations board's activities until the legal uncertainty is resolved. therefore, i urge my colleagues the te for this rule and underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the anne will rise. -- by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question, which will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 146, if ordered, and the approving of the journal. [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 226, the nays are 192. the previous question is ordered. nd the house will be in order.

the speaker: the house will be in order. members will please take their seats. he house will be in order. the chair lays before the house communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a scanned copy of a letter received from mr. miller, executive director, illinois state board of elections, indicating that, according to the unofficial returns of the

special election held april 9, 2013, the honorable robin r. kelly was elected representative to congress for the second congressional district, state of illinois. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk f the house. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. gutierrez: i ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from illinois, the honorable robin kelly, be permitted to take the oath of office today. her certificate of election has not arrived but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. will representative-elect kelly and members of the illinois delegation present themselves n the well of the house?

nd will members please rise? representative-elect kelly could raise her right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support or defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will faithfully discharge the duties on which you are about to enter, so help you god? congratulations, you are now a ember of the 113th congress.

without objection, the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, is recognized for one minute. mr. gutierrez: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield that one minute to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, bobby rush. that's go i got to be the dean but we are sharing it today. congressman bobby rush, please introduce the gentlelady. mr. rush: i want to thank my colleague, mr. gutierrez, the dean of the illinois delegation. ladies and gentlemen of the house, it is my honor to introduce to you now one of the most remarkable persons that you'll ever want to meet, a

fine, outstanding public servant, one who has cut her teeth on helping to address the pains and the problem of those who reside in the second congressional district. this fine woman is an example of the kind of public official from e send to washington the land of lincoln. commits herself day and night to solving the problems of common, everyday, ordinary people. she's a person with keen sion, enormous insight and enormous capacity to accomplish

what she starts out when she begins. she is indeed an inspiration to all of us. she is the person that's going to make this house proud, the state of illinois proud and the people from the first congressional district very, very proud of her. and i'm just so glad to introduce you to the now congresswoman from the congressional district, i have the pleasure of introducing her as the congresswoman of the first congressional district -- second congressional district. she don't live in the first congressional district and then run against me. so robin kelly, our congresswoman. mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker, i now yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus.

mr. shimkus: i thank my colleague and we want to welcome robin to the chamber. you'll find that people are working hard on both sides of the aisle to represent the folks that they are here to represent. the illinois delegation has a monthly luncheon, bicameral, and we look forward to meeting so that those downstaters and those from other districts can understand the concerns of the south side of chicago and the like and you can understand the concerns of real, rural, deep southern illinois. welcome to the chamber. mr. gutierrez: now, ladies and gentlemen, the distinguished lady from the state of illinois, ms. kelly.

the speaker: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kelly: thank you so very much. it is truly an honor to be standing here and humbling to have been chosen to represent the families of the second congressional district. i thank the entire illinois delegation for their support. i would also like to thank my many family members, friends and staff who are here in the gallery today. thank you so much. as i look around this hallowed chamber, i know this is a place where so much history has been made, but today i stand before you to talk about our president. i ran for congress so that i could work to bring about a safer, less violent and more prosperous future, one in which our children can grow up without the fear of gun violence. today is an important day in

that fight. i look forward to working with you to protect our children from criminals and protect our second amendment rights for law-abiding citizens because we should and can do both. i look forward to working on the many issues we face, such as creating jobs, passing immigration reform and continuing the hard work and improving our health care system. but today is about a new eginning for the people of the second congressional district who i am so proud and honored to represent. i look forward to bringing -- being their advocate and champion and working with you to create a brighter future for all of our constituents. thank you and god bless. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. under clause 5-d of rule 20, the

chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. kelly, the whole umber of the house is now 433. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of house resolution 146. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 124. --194. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the spomplee of the journal. -- speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 272. the nays are 136 and one present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection. >> there is nothing on earth more precious than life. no matter where you stand on the abortion issue, most americans find the practice and actions of dr. gosnell, an abortion provider, to be brutal and bar barrack. mr. stockman: his method of

killing babies are commonly used by clinics across the nation. mr. williams: it takes the lives of over one million unborn children each year in the united states. this is a violent act that is entirely unjustifiable. i am a firm believer that every human being is created in god's own image, every life is precious and we have an obligation to protect life at every stage. it's time we get rid of this gruesome procedure once and for all, and i hope and pray that the president will consider it before more innocent lives are taken. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i

rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest labor leaders that i've known and to honor the memory and mourn the loss of ronnie raspberry of houston, texas. i rise to pay tribute to him as a champion of working people, one of the great community leaders in the city of houston and harris and texas. unfortunately, he passed and this month of april we lost a dear friend. ronnie raspberry was born in 1941 in the midst of the times of challenge, and he married his beloved wife, roycey, and they are proud parents of four children. being born in the midst of world war ii, he understood the value of service, and so he joined the united states marine corps and was honorably

discharged. he began his work in an apprenticeship program under the houston training committee for electrical workers. he became a member of union 1716 where i first met him. what a generous heart, what a man who loved people. he loved to train people. he was a fighter to ensure there was dignity in the workplace. in 1974 at age 32, he was elected as business manager. he held that position for 15 years. during his stewardship, he served as the chief contract negotiator, chairman and secretary of numerous boards and trusts and committees. he continued to represent labor and labor conferences. he elected and served five years as the representative of the sixth district international executive council. ronnie was awarded the west gulfport council leader of the year, mr. speaker, appointed to many other positions by the governor. we knew hes with a great leader. i offer my sympathy -- we knew

he was a great leader. i offer my sympathy to his wife and family. we love you and thank you for being the great leader you've been fighting for the working people. thank you, ronnie. god bless you, and, again, may you rest in peace. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan -- from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today my colleague, representative loebsack, and i are proud to introduce the benefits disabilities act. it fixes a glaring problem. currently our nation's wounded warriors are forced to wait five months for their approved social security disability benefits. this is an injustice to our nation's heroes. these are benefits that they have earned at a very high price and they deserve better. the recovering service members disabilities benefits act will remove this mandatory five-month waiting period,

allowing the wounded wariers to collect the benefits. -- warriors to collect the benefits. the bill simply expedites earned and approved benefits to eligible wounded warriors. it is an honor to introduce this legislation and correct this issue. our disabled service members deserve the immediate reassurance of knowing there is financial support as they cope with the physical and mental challenges of recovery. we hope this bipartisan will be brought through the committee and to the house floor in a swift manner. thank you and god bless all those who serve our country. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in solidarity with my colleague from the states climate caucus to call on republicans to end their silence and join the conversation on climate disruption. a recent united nations report provides a stark warning,

saying that if we don't address climate disruption, the number of people living in extreme poverty could increase by up to three billion people by 2050. the report is clear. failing to act now creates a much larger and more costly problem later. fortunately, we have the ability and the means to address climate disruption. i am proud to say that clean energy companies and universities in my own district are leading the way in research, clean job creation and sustainable long-term solutions. but this type of innovation and job creation cannot go on if republicans continue to ignore the threat of climate change and recklessly cut funding to important programs that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. i urge my republican colleagues to think about their moral responsibility to join this dialogue and to protect our planet for their children and for the long-term stability of this country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

rom maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i congratulate the president for sending up a budget. now, it was 65 days late. no reason why it was late. mr. harris: the senate, to their credit in four years, passed a budget on time. but the amazing thing, mr. speaker, is that in the face of an almost $1 trillion deficit and a $17 trillion debt, the president sent up a budget that increases spending, increases taxes, increases the deficit, cuts social security and medicare and still never balances. that's quite a feat. mr. speaker, america knows our debt and our deficit are strangling our economy. let's roll up our sleeves, work with the senate and solve the fiscal mess this nation is in.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek to be recognized? mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i am encouraged by the clear bipartisan support in the senate for a full and fair debate on meaningful ways to reduce gun violence in our country. after experienced a gun accident myself that left me paralyzed more than 30 years ago, i know firsthand the answer to keeping people, especially our children, safe is not having more guns around our kids and our communities, as the gun lobbyists propose. i am hopeful that the senate heard the public outcry for real change. with 90% of americans favoring the basic step of universal background checks, 40% of the gun sales in america occur at

gun shows that require no background check at all. let's close the gun show loophole and if a gun is sold there is a background check to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or those with mental illness so severe they would be a danger to those in the community. i encourage speaker boehner to stop delaying on the house floor of gun safety legislation. the task force has put together proposals and i welcome ideas from both parties, what is inexcusable of gun accidents is inaction. we cannot sit back and wait any longer. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek to be ecognized? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the house floor from

a committee. the o.m.b. director presented the budget today. the folks said, i thought it was here to be the first week of february. it is true. better late than never continues to be true as well, but as we listened to the details of the budget, mr. speaker, what we heard was this. the president's proposing to increase spending, increase taxes and increase the debt. mr. speaker, there are thousands of pages to this budget. i hope we'll find some things we can agree on, but i know that the american people agree with republicans in this house when we say taxes are already too high, spending is already too high and the debt is already too high. the president's budget never, ever pays one penny of our federal debt. it's wrong. we can do better. this house must come together and lead that charge. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other members requesting one-minute speeches?

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority party. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i do ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, will the decade-long national news media cover-up of the brutality and the violence of abortion methods ever end? will americans ever be told of the horrifying details as to w and how often abortionists decapitate and chemically poison innocent babies? will americans ever be informed by an unbiased national news media that in the past 40 years over 55 million child victims have been brutally killed by

abortion, a staggering loss of children's lives that equates to the entire population of england? and that many women have been hurt physically, emotionally and psychologically? and according to the centers for disease control -- and this is a very conservative estimate from c.d.c. -- over 400 women have actually died from legal abortions. will americans ever be told that of the 55 million children , planned parenthood alone claims responsibility for destroying six million babies? and that just two weeks ago a planned parenthood leader in florida testified at a legislative hearing on a state initiative to protect born-alive infants, that even when a child survives an abortion, the decision to kill the born alive infant should be, quote, up to the woman, the family and the physician.

if the child intended to be aborted, survives the assault, the choice to kill remains. so-called after-birth abortion. isn't that extreme child abuse? murdering newborns in the abortion clinic seems to me is indistinguishable from any other child predator wielding a knife or a gun. why isn't that -- why isn't the child also seen as a patient in need of medical care, warmth, nutrition and dare i say love? now, another national media cover-up. in this case, even when a jeffrey dal more-like murder trial of -- dalmer-like murder replete dr. gosnell, with shocking testimony of beheadings, unfathomable abuse, death and body parts in jars, until this day the national news media remains uninterested, woefully

indifferent, awol. why the censorship? why gosnell's house of horrors, his trial fails till this day to attract any serious and national news media reporting? dr. gosnell is on trial for eight counts of murder, one count is for the death of a woman, a victim who died during an abortion in his clinic. seven counts are for babies who survived their abortion and were born alive but then killed by severing their spinal chords with a pair of scissors. . gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies, he killed them. he didn't call it that. he called it ensuring fetal demise. the way he he ensured fetal demise is by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal chord.

he called that snipping. over the years, according to the grand jury report, there were hundreds of snippings. in these the national news media has not only looked the other way, but their stunning indifference has done a grave disservice to his victims. a woman killed, other women injured, and children slaughtered by gosnell. because of the national news media's indefensible silence, because of their failure to report, other women and children at other abortion mills might also be at risk. the grand jury reports, again in january, 2011, pointedly pointed out and noted, that in absence of press coverage and gross negligence by the health department in pennsylvania, enabled gosnell to show a contemptuous disregard for the safety of his patients that

continued for 40 years. right at the beginning of roe vs. wade he was overlooked by a media that was disinterested. some media commentators, however, are beginning to take note of the national news media blackout and the bias that undergirds and is inherent in that blackout. yesterday the investors business townorial was the title, new in the clinic. the gosnell trial begins in pertinent part. a basketball coach who shoves and curses at his players merits constant coverage transfixed by newtown, but a philadelphia doctor on trial for murdering a woman and seven babies is ignored. those who get their news from the three major networks have probably not heard of dr. gosnell. now on trial in philadelphia charged with seven counts of first degree murder and one count of third degree murder for

killing seven babies who survived abortion and a woman who died after a botched painkiller abortion. the editorial points out according to many research center, in one week, the coach from rutgers, received 41 minutes on abc, cbs, and nbc in 36 separate news stories. gosnell received zero coverage. the editorial points out after gosnell has walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an ar-15 it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand wringing. in today's edition of "usa today," columnist powers rights, infants beheadings, severed baby feet in jars, a child screaming after it was delivered during an abortion procedure. haven't heard of those sickening accusations? it's not your fault. the murder trial of pennsylvania

abortion dr. gosnell began on march 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and on the front page. she goes on to write in her editorial, column, a lexus nexus search shows none of the news shows of the three major networks has mentioned the gosnell trial in the last three months. the exception when "wall street journal" columnist peggy noonian hydrogened a segment of the "meet the press" show. i ask my colleagues and news media why the blackout? will america ever be told the brutality of abortion and violence that's commonplace inside the abortion industry? or will the media, national media especially, continue to sensor and sensors -- censor, censor a trial. a trial of the century that exposes all of the all too inconvenient truths that not only are unborn children

destroyed in these killing centers by being dismembered but that even babies who survive the abortion can't escape the deadly hand of these child predators. i'd like to yield to my good iend and colleague vicky hartzler. mrs. hartzler: thank you so much. i appreciate this opportunity to share today as we look at the national media cover-up of this very, very horrific act. as we gather today to bring awareness of this trial and horrific actions he's been charged with, we remember the many that were murdered at the women's medical society clinic and deny the chance to be our siblings, playmates, a friend, our peers. we mourn their loss and we mourn the deep pain and confusion that abortion has inflicted upon women, men, and their families. this trial provides revealing

insights into the abortion industry and specifically highlights the reality that abortion involves taking a human life. these killings expose the very gruesome nature of what happens in abortion clinics all across this country where over 1.2 million unborn children die in abortions every year. as legislator, i will continue to speak in defense of the most basic human rights, life. i will continue to support legislation that would stop federal funding for abortion providers. and i will continue to champion the inherent human dignity of every life born and unborn. thank you. mr. smith: my good friend and colleague, mrs. hartzler, for her statement of championing the rights of the unborn and their mothers and joining us in this special order today.

i'd like to yield to a medical doctor who has been a leader on conscience rights in the house of representatives and the congress, dr. fleming. mr. fleming: i certainly want to thank my good friend from new jersey for all the great work that you have done on this and what you continue to do, and i have to say, mr. speaker, that just hearing about this trial, quite frankly i haven't heard about it on tv, if i weren't informed about it leading up to this special order, i wouldn't know about the gosnell trial. one that i think is really sickening just to hear the facts. it's interesting this country has reached a point where we have focused so much on the humane treatment of animals, that is to treat animals like humans, that leads to question why do we not treat people like people? why don't we treat humans,

humanely? i think that is an important question. what do people say to themselves -- who themselves have survived abortion? i was at a meeting several months ago and i met two fantastic mothers. mothers of children. while she , her mom, was still pregnant with her, attempted to have a suicide, but for whatever reason couldn't get get it lined up or whatever, and eventually ended up not having the abortion. of course this beautiful lady was eventually born and now she's grown up to an adult. very productive, very beautiful. herself has children. and of course if you ask her, what do you think about your mother's attempt to vn aabortion of you while you were still in the womb? she would say, speaking i think for millions of unborn today and

unborn in the past, let me live, give me an opportunity. i the innocent unborn to live. give me a chance to live in society. i met another beautiful lady at this meeting, her mother, while still pregnant with her, late term, actually attempted to have a saline abortion. and it was a botched abortion. it didn't work. by that i mean she was born alive and remained alive. fortunately for her, the health care workers decided to go ahead and revive and resuscitate her. and we know that saline abortions, if you have a child that survives, it scalds the skin. it creates injury to that baby. she was treated. she grew up, again, to be a beautiful woman. one who married and one who had children. and if you ask her today, she would tell you she would speak

for the millions of the unborn, both in the past and those who are killed in the womb today, yes, let me live. give me a chance to live. what about the question, infan at this side -- infanticide, that's what we are talking about in the gosnell case. these babies, for whatever reason, he certainly wasn't a good enough doctor to accomplish the abortion while babies were still in the womb, then has to go on and do something that i think most americans would consider murder, and that is infanticide. most places, perhaps all places in america today, infanticide is murder. but the question is this, mr. speaker, do you realize that there are two bioethicists in australia who have recently proposed of a concept called delivery on -- post abortion? of course we know that to be infanticide. once the baby's born, if you

kill the baby, that's infanticide. but they want to, of course, do a little word smithing it and call it something else. post delivery abortion. what that mean is this. if the baby is born and there is something about the baby you're dissatisfied with, maybe it has an abnormality of some sort, maybe it's going to cost some money, heart deformity, facial deformity, maybe it's born with a genetic defect, you should have as the mother the option of killing that baby even outside of the womb. there's even been a hint that perhaps that taking a baby's life even up to the age of conscious life, which could be, i don't know, a year or even more, would be still incongruent with the concept of -- incongruent with the concept of post delivery abortion. this is a slippery slope. once you get past the fact that

life begins at conception, and of course with today's technology infants born as early as age 22 weeks, certainly 24 weeks, often survive at a time when they couldn't in the past, this has become an extreme slippery slope to the point where there are many out there who would actually turn their backs on life, even after the point of delivery. mr. speaker, what about the lives of the women themselves? i'm a physician. and i have seen women after they have had an abortion. i can even think of a couple of cases in my pack terrorist -- practice where i would never send a lady for an abortion, i was forced to treat a lady after an abortion because she was treated by a physician who comes into town, does a bunch of abortions, leaves town, and then says if you have any complications go see your family

doctor. of course that's psychening for me. that means i'm involuntarily participating in at least tacitly in treating a lady who has had complications from an abortion. this really goes to show you to the point of in the case with this dr. gozz nell just -- gosnell just how unfeeling and inhumane the whole consideration is. what drives people to do this? we know if you look at studies it's about money. it's all about money, mr. speaker. they make millions of dollars. i think in the case of dr. gosnell, he became a multimillionaire because of all the many abortions he provided over the years. again back to the women. what happens to the women who have abortions? these are some things that we know. once a woman has an abortion, her chance of having a future miscarriage goes up. so now we are talking about

miscarriages, stillborn, and the issue of infer tillity. rate -- infertility. rate of suesides higher in women who had abortions. what about the rate of other complications? depression and other things? we know they are all higher. the outcomes and future life of young women are even -- or even not so young women who undergo abortions, mr. speaker, are really not he very positive. . why would we encourage this? certainly we know that we know that a woman who gets an abortion the first time will get a second and third abortion and it really becomes a form of birth control. so in summary, mr. speaker, i stand up with my colleagues the to speak out against fact that not only are we seeing abortion continue, the taking of innocent life, in this nation, but even the mere consideration of ending the

afterbirth, ant, either because of a botched abortion or even deliberately just because there's some dissatisfaction with the outcome, i think is really horrible and something we should be ashamed up. certainly, mr. speaker, if we can give consideration and humane treatment to animals, should we not do this for our own as well? i rise in support of my colleagues on this very important issue. i do think if we can't do it on a federal level we need to move forward in our states, such as my own state of louisiana, where we've developed certain requirements, elevated requirements of accountability for doctors who provide abortions so they can't just fly in and fly out and then leave a mess. they've got to have perhaps certain credentials and maintain hospital privileges,

perhaps, create limitations on after so many weeks can abortion actually be done. let's do away with late-term abortions, again, an abominable act. we know that through studies that the unborn feel pain at least as early as 20 weeks gestation and maybe earlier. certain states, such as arkansas, recently passed laws against late-term abortions. and certainly again in my home state of louisiana, we have a cooling off period where you got to think about that. think one more time, just think for 24 hours, maybe even pray about it. is this something i really want to go forward with, end the life of my progeny? and certainly a requirement of an ultrasound, at least a requirement of seeing the baby before you terminate its poor life. once again, i thank my colleagues and it's certainly a privilege and honor to speak on what is i think one of the most

important issues that we have in america and with that i yield back. mr. smith: dr. fleming, thank you so much for your leadership and your statement. i'd like to yield to my good colleague, scott garrett, the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for arranging today's -- tonight's special order. i thank him also, the gentleman from new jersey, for his leadership on this very important issue, not just today, not just yesterday, but over years after year after year coming to this floor speaking around our state, speaking around the nation as well, speaking for those who do not have a voice, speaking for the weak, the unborn. we thank you for your leadership in this area. we recognize that you have created a profound affect for this nation and we thank you --

profound effect for this nation and we thank you for that. i, too, come from new jersey and i would like to speak briefly, and i'll reference a woman who lived in new jersey, who lived up in my neck of the woods. and maybe some of you have heard her name before and you would if you walk around this capitol because she's commemorated in a sculpture located in the rotunda of this building. i'm talking about elizabeth katie stanton -- katy stanton. she was a women's rights activist. she worked to ensure the equality of women before the law of this country. and also she fought for the important issue of the sanctity of life. y back over 100 years ago in 1873, she wrote a letter to julia ward howl, and -- howell and she wrote the following --

when we consider that women are treated today as property, it is degrading to women we should treat our own children as property to be disposed of as we see fit, unquote. today i believe she would be horrified, i believe she would be disgusted, as my colleagues are as well, that millions of other americans are watching what's going on in philadelphia. kermit gosnell is on trial in that city and a city that gave birth to america, in a city that gave birth to the declaration of independence, a city that gave birth to the idea that the promise of liberty, life, pursuit of happiness, is on trial for the murder of eight people. one woman and seven innocent defenseless children who were born alive and healthy but then ere killed by the abortionist.

his clinic carried out hundreds, thousands of abortions over the years using the doctor's own gruesome techniques on children who were over the pennsylvania legal limit of 24 weeks. now, as was pointed out, news reports on the trial are nonexistent. reports of testimony in the grand jury are basically nonexistent in the media, but if you dig down and get a copy of the grand jury's report, you see what we're talking about and how gruesome it is. according to the grand jury report, quote, gosnell had a simple solution, this is from the grand jury's report, gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies. he killed them. he didn't call it that. he called it, quote, ensuring fetal demise. he called it then, snipping, end quote. over the years there were

literally hundreds of snippings. this we find from the grand jury's report. this is murder and we should call it where it is. where then is the protection of life, where then is the protection of liberty and the pursuit of happiness? where -- where is the outrage of what is going on there? where is the outrage that nothing of this is being reported in any of the major newspapers across this country, on any of the major radio stations, on any of the major cable channels across this country? you have to dig, as i did, to find it in the back pages. e media and pro-abortion people ensure that kids have easy access to the morn-after pill than this trial, the gruesome acts in the trial they

allege of dr. gosnell or for the 1.2 million unborn children who die in america every year. mr. speaker, i join my colleagues tonight in addressing my disgust with this case and disgust with the media and not covering these actions. every child, every child is precious. every child is a gift. we must continue this fight to protect this most fundamental right for the unborn and each of us the right to life, and we must also make sure when it is destroyed that it is exposed. again, with that i conclude and i thank the gentleman from new jersey for his actions tonight. mr. smith: i want to thank the gentleman for his eloquence and also for his faithfulness in defending the powerless and the people who need voices. unborn children, their women, the vulnerable and the weak, he's always there and i want to thank you so much. i'd like to now yield to the chairman of the health committee for the energy and

commerce committee for the house of representatives, joe pitts, note that congressman pitts, chairman pitts is the author of the abortion control act of 1980, the legislation that established then the framework of row vs. wade, a -- roe vs. wade, to protect to the maximum extent possible, pursuant to that onerous decision by the supreme court, and it was upheld by the supreme court, to do investigations of clinics and just hold to a higher standard so that to the greatest extent possible life would be protected. congressman pitts has been leading the charge on life for his entire career, both in the state legislature and in the u.s. house of representatives. so it is a distinct honor to yield to my good friend. mr. pitts: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, congressman smith, for your leadership on this issue here in congress.

very, very wonderful, inspiring leadership to all of us who have been engaged in this -- on this issue for years in state legislatures like pennsylvania and other parts of the country. but u.s. route 30 runs through the heart of my district in lancaster county and chester county in pennsylvania. you follow that road all the way into philadelphia, you will pass a nondescript triangle-shaped building at 38th street. for years dr. kermit gosnell operated a factory of death in that location just across the street from a church. this week gosnell is on trial for multiple homicides that demonstrate just how thin the line between abortion and murder is in this country.

dr. kermit gosnell spent years taking advantage of vulnerable women, offering illegal and dangerous abortions in exchange for cash. he also operated a pill mill, selling prescription drugs to anyone in the neighborhood with enough cash. he sold death to the poor. and he lived handsomely for years. state authorities never darkened the door of what he called a clinic until a mother died of an overdose during one of gosnell's procedures. he used clinical terminology to pave over the fact that in many cases he was killing a child who had already been born. while he is charged with seven counts of murdering an infant and a single count of murdering

a mother, we don't know how many children died after they were born. just as he was careless with the lives of children, he was careless with the lives of mothers and he treated them in terrible conditions, often sending them out of the clinic injured and still under the influence of an theeshia. e should always remember -- an stheeshia. we should always remember that abortion is the most violent form of death known to humankind and there are always two victims in every abortion. one is the child, the unborn child. the other is the mother. one is dead, one is wounded. an abortion is violence against the unborn. against violence women. but the facts of this case raised the disturbing question of just how close legal abortion practices come to outright murder.

gosnell knew that there was little real medical difference between killing the child in utero and killing them outside the mother. like standard legal abortion practice, he would use chemicals to first poison the unborn child. if he had waited until death to remove their body, he would be within the law. because he took the children out of the mothers while they were still alive, he's guilty of murder. gosnell only took a leap that certain splectuals and so-called medical ethicists have been talking for decades. two researchers published a paper in the prestigious "journal of medical ethics" entitled "after-birth abortion." the assertion was that the fetus doesn't become a child until they are wanted.

let us never say that these are unwanted children, not while there are tens of thousands of married couples waiting to adopt. couples who wait months or years to bring home a baby boy or girl. many americans even travel far abroad to -- in order to adopt. in many cases they go all the ay to china or ethiopia. gosnell's victims and the millions of other lives lost to abortion are by no means unwanted. the case of dr. gosnell is gruesome. the place that he ran was a gruesome factory and disturbing but only because it strips away the clinical nature of most abortions. his carelessness exposed what the fetus actually was, a human , that he cruelly murdered.

and yet the press will ignore, will remain silent on what is happening in this very important trial in philadelphia. we ignore the tiniest human life at great peril, because as gosnell demonstrates, flipansy for life creeps from the infant to the sdult. we must pro-- the adult. we must protect all life, no matter how small or at what stage. so i commend congressman smith and my other colleagues who come to speak today about this important policy issue. it's about people. it's about children. it's about women. i yield back. mr. smith: i thank chairman pitts for his statement. even the grand jury report noted that if mr. pitts' law had been followed faithfully,

the whole goes knelt destruction of -- the whole gosnell destruction of not only women's lives, the death and murder of one woman and the chilling -- killing of these children, might not have occurred. i'd like to yield to dr. andy harris, a johns hopkins physician and also also maybe of the u.s. house from maryland. dr. harris. mr. harris: thank you very much. i'd like to thank the gentleman from new jersey for bringing this subject to the attention of the american people. because this is a subject that's not going away. what we're talking about today, of course, is a trial going on in pennsylvania, little heard about in the press, but one that's very significant, because when it's coupled with what the gentleman from pennsylvania and the gentleman from louisiana spoke about, the overarching medical ethics question, it's something we have to come to deal with. because, mr. speaker, it is true that apparently in dr. gosnell's mind, there was

little difference between a late-term abortion and killing a baby after birth. and make no mistake about it, these children were killed because the trial right now is for seven cases of murder. on those newborns. interestingly, only discovered because of the death of the mother. and to show how flippantly many states have dealt with the issue of regulating clinics like that, we would never have known unless this mother died. and in my home state of maryland, two deaths have recently occurred and only as a has the those deaths department of health and mental hygiene decided that, yes, maybe we actually should regulate clinics with this kind of surgery -- where this kind of surgery is done. closed four e've of those clinics until they would bring them up to standards that we would

consider modern medical practice. let's pay attention. because my specialty is anesthesiologist, to what was going on in that clinic in pennsylvania. dr. gosnell hired a surgical technician, this is someone he hired to clean instruments, and had that person administer anesthesia to those poor women going to that clinic thinking they were going to get good medical care. this is someone whose training was in how to clean a mental instrument -- metal instrument, now administering life-threatening drugs, and, mr. speaker, we know they're life-threatening because the misuse of those drugs resulted in that woman's death. in fact, three drugs administered, demerol, a powerful narcotic, valium, a powerful sedtific, and another sedative. administered by someone whose training was to clean medical instruments.

and that is what's considered acceptable practice in many states in the country because many states choose not to regulate clinics where these abortion procedures are done. but let's make no mistake about it. it wasn't just that the killing of the mother that's an issue here, it's the grotesque procedure that was done in that clinic by the doctor and the people he trained. end to the lives of those babies who were born alive. and we might think this is a terrible thing. in fact, that grand jury thought it was a terrible thing. they in fact indicted on seven counts of murder, called it murder. but you know, the gentleman from pennsylvania and the gentleman from louisiana bring up an article published just last year in the journal of medical eggetsics by -- ethics by professors from italy and australia, these are fairly

civilized countries, the title of the article's fascinating. if the gentleman doesn't mind, i'm going to go through some of this. america has to understand what this moral discussion going on worldwide is, because i will ell you, i'm shocked because 10 years ago -- i'm no shocked now that this article is published, 10 years ago it wouldn't even be thinkable. the title is "after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" and it's about committing what this author calls after-birth abortion which is currently , led euthanasia or murder infant side, in our current speech. but this these authors prefer a new term. after-birth abortion. we're going to make this sound better. because we know abortion's league so we're just going to call -- legal, so we're just going to call this after-birth

abortion. what it is is justification for killing a child after birth when no abortion was intended. mr. speaker, this is just the next step to what dr. gosnell did. dr. gosnell killed a child after an abortion was intended, we think that's bad, a grand jury thought it was bad, there's seven titlements for murder in pennsylvania, these -- indictments for murder in pennsylvania, these propose that even if it wasn't an intentional abortion, that mother went and had her baby and decided that, well, her daughter just wasn't going to fit in with the familiar, literally, that it was ok to kill that baby. and if you don't believe me, ladies and gentlemen, just go and google it. read the article yourself. it's chilling. because some people say, well, you know, maybe the child's born disabled or born with some terrible illness or something that's very painful and maybe we're just doing good things for the child but the authors say, these include cases where

the newborn is not disabled. i'm going to read from these word for word because i want to get this right and i want, mr. speaker, i want america to understand what's at stake here. they make the argument that the fact that a fetus or a newborn has the potential to become a person who will have an acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting an abortion or in this case killing that child after birth. they argue that, and i'm going to quote this, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. mr. speaker, let me remind you that in the united states, sex selection abortion is legal in many states. in china, and if we don't think this is a slippery slope, remember what's happened in

china over the past decade. -- decades. they have decided under their one-child policy that if you have a live birth of a second child, it's legal to kill that child for the sole purpose of it being a second child. and, mr. speaker, as we know, occasionally the girls were killed if they were the first child, knowing you could only have one child and the family wanted a boy. so in china it's gone past sex selection abortion to sex infanticide but that's exactly what this article speaks about. this article seeks, again, written by professors from italy and australia, published a prestigious journal, that ethically justifies killing a ild after birth because,

well, mr. speaker, for any reason. because they argue that child has no right to grow up. and if you don't believe me, they go on to say, and i'm going to quote this, they go on to say that this is not an actual person. it's a potential person. it's notal actual person. so -- it's not an actual person. so if a potential person does not actually become a person because you don't allow it do grow up like you or i, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed. oom not sure i understand that. which means there's no harm at all. so killing the fetus of the child does no harm at all. but they go on to say this, which is amazing, and this is why people have to understand how foreign of thought this is to many of us. so, and i'm going to quote this, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or

newborns, our answer is no. what, mr. speaker? they're suggesting that if someone came up to me and said, would i have been harmed if my parent had decided to kill me when i was a newborn, my answer should be no? how many people do they really think you can go up to and ask, if your parents had killed you as a newborn, would you have been harmed? do they really think people are ready to say, no, no harm, no foul, i wasn't a person, that's all right, that's totally ethical? they create an ethical framework completely consistent with abortion policy throughout most of the united states. -term, t is that a late third-trimester fetus has no right as a person. and only merely expend that

logic to the period after birth. that's all they're doing. so although this may sound grotesque and shocking that they suggest that there's no moral problem with killing a newborn, it's merely an ethical, logical extension of the way we have been treating fetuses since 1973. it gets worse. because the gentleman from pennsylvania suggested, well, there are plenty of people who would adopt this child. they go on to say that it's actually better in many cases to kill the child than put it up for adoption. this is stunning. and the reason they say that is that we need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. they suggest there would be no psychological distress for that woman to have carried that

child for nine months, given birth to a normal baby, decided they don't want it and agree to have someone kill it? it's stunning. it's striking. and let me tell you, and i'll close on this, because we're shocked by this, but let me tell you something. we can't argue with nature. we can't argue with what nature tells us. and it answers the question, why in the world is the younger generation more pro-life than my generation? and it comes up in poll after poll after poll. how in the world can that be? we have an enlightened younger generation. is it enlightened to think about this ethical framework? how can this be? mr. speaker, let me suggest how this can be. this is the first generation where two things hold true. they fully understand what makes a human a human. because they learned genetics and chromosomes and they know

that every single person is unique from every other person ver, ever, based on science. and there's one other thing they know, mr. speaker. this is the first generation where they know that they could have been aborted legally. the first generation where they actually answer those questions , would harm have been done to me if i would have been killed as a fetus? and their answer resoundingly, because that's why the polling shows this, is they know the answer is yes. we are harming a human in the decision to take its life. and that is true whether it is

at three months, six months, eight months. because they know that was them as an embryo at three months and that was them at six months and that was them at nine months. if they were in philadelphia and in dr. gosnell's clinic, that would have been them one minute after birth or five minutes after birth and they know that under that construct of ethics, by those professors in italy and australia, published in the journal of medical ethics, they're proposing that could have been them at one day, one week. because those professors actually go on to say, we can't really set what the deadline is for how long is ethical. mr. speaker, that younger generation is smarter than my generation on this issue. and i'm going to thank again the gentleman from new jersey for bringing this issue up. this is something that is so troubling. we have to come to grips with this. we have to understand the slope we are on when we neglect to eat every human being as one

worthy of protection. and i'm going to thank the organizer of this special order. mr. smith: dr. harris, thank you for that very insightful and i would say brilliant defense of not just the unborn but the newly born and your very logical argument as to how this is already being extended in what is called after-birth abortion to those who, like dr. gosnell's victims, who have been born and then are killed. i would point to my colleagues, we're going to mr. stutzman, that one of the clinic individuals who was actually killing these children, this came out in testimony at the trial, said that when he heard the child crying it was like an alien. children cry when they're being killed and in this case a very

painful, as you pointed out, pain-capable children are at least at 20 weeks, some of them were at 24, 25, even higher. as we learned from the grand jury as well as from these proceedings, some of these children were as old as 30 weeks, very, very large children, very mature children, but no different than the child who just a few weeks and even months before, same child, just a little more mature and as you said worthy of protection always. i'd like to yield to mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman: i'd like to thank the gentleman from new jersey yielding and appreciate his efforts to bring this attention of this particular matter to the attention of the american people and also want to thank the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris, who just spoke so eloquently and factually and knowledgeablely about this particular i shall --

knowledgeabley about this particular issue and my heart is torn as i stand on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives as we're discussing a matter that's happening right here in our own country. i tell the gentleman from new jersey that i was just meeting with a doctor in my office just a couple hours -- last couple of hours who worked in one of he neo natal clinics in -- neonatal clinics in northern indiana and worked in the technology, the ability and the effort that doctors in a neonatal facility goes through to save the life of a baby that and is d is amazing heart touching. and to then come to this particular matter and to hear the details of this tragic location in philadelphia that was performing abortions like

this is just heartwrenching. and mr. speaker, i would share with this body that certain places are permanent reminders that evil men will do evil things, whether it's in auschwitz, cambodia's killing fields and now a run down [building on the street of 38th and lancaster in philadelphia. the building filled with blood-stained furniture, kermit osnell was running a slaughterhouse and was severing the spinal cords of babies. the loss of these lives should scar the conscience of civilized people around the world. this is not about choice.

we are talking about brutal deaths of newborn children. mr. speaker, kermit gosnell is a predator who must be publicly exposed and openly denounced, and that's why i come to the floor to bring attention to the case that the american people are informed of it, aware of it and realizing the acts that are happening within our own country. i have no doubt that in this life or the next he will be held accountable for his crimes . however, right here and right now we ought to take a serious look at our culture's careless disregard of this story in particular, an innocent life in general. how is it that in our age of constant news not a single major news outlet, not a single major news outlet has devoted serious attention to the

atrocities that weren't committed halfway around the world but in west philadelphia, pennsylvania? has our national conscience been irrevirsably seared by the deaths of more than 1.2 million unborn children every year in this country? i believe this is something that the media should be talking about. they talk about so many other issues that affect our country, and rightly so, but i believe this is one of those that should be discussed and reported on by the media. i've only seen a brief report on it this within the last week . mr. speaker, i'm confident that one day the era of abortion on demand will close, and we will restore a lasting respect for life. but however, until that day comes, each of us must take up the cause of those who cannot

speak for themselves. i thank congressman smith for his unwaivering commitment and his leadership and his efforts to protect life and especially to bring this particular matter to the attention of the american people so that we as a country will stand up and do the right thing for those who cannot speak for themselves. with that i'll yield back to the gentleman. mr. smith: i thank mr. stutzman for that very extraordinarily eloquent speech, bringing to the american people an inconvenient truth that needs to be exposed and, again, reminding us all that the major has had a nbc, cbs, blackout, cover-up. if this was any other trial of a horrific blood letting, house of horrors, it would be front page, it would be the lead story, maybe second or third on

some nights, on the major networks. the "philadelphia inquirer," to its credit, a newspapers that is not pro-life editorially, and i know that because i've talked to them over the many years, they nevertheless deployed reporters who have done a very, very good job in covering this trial. but that's pretty much where it ends. again, major networks ought to be there. i would point out, you know, that the reason why this clinic and this house of horrors was allowed to do much of what it has done is because of the chilling effect that the pro-abortion side has had on clinics where children are routinely slaughtered. and the grand jury itself said, and i quote, the politics in question were not anti-abortion but pro-abortion. with the change of administration's from governor casey, a democrat pro-life, pair theycally, to governor tom

bridge, pro-abortion, they would be putting a barrier up to women seeking abortions. better to leave the clinics do as it please, the grand jury pay.ted, both will that is found on page 9. i'd like to yield to my good friend and colleague, mr. roskam, for as much time as he may consume. mr. roskam: troubling is what we see in philadelphia. and i think you look at what this trial is about and about 20 years ago we had a decision from our supreme court that basically said at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence of the meaning of the universe and the mystery of human life.

i suggest that the heart of dr. gosnell's trial is this understanding on the part of dr. gosnell, he had the liberty to define his own concept of existence and of meaning and of the universe. mr. rothfus: but that's to be juxtapose to what our founders found to be self-evident truths, that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that is enshrined in our constitution where our fifth amendment says that no person should be deprived of life without due process of law. again, in our 14th amendment, which says that no state shall deprive a person of life without due process of law. so as i watch this trial unfold in philadelphia, continue to hear the daily testimony of

what's happening, i think it's appropriate that we reflect on those words of the founders and how far we've come from those days. i yield back. mr. smith: i thank my friend for yielding and coming back from his markup, mr. speaker. you know, there was a report in "the philadelphia inquirer," just tell the truth, just say what's happening in this trial, an ex-employee of gosnell how she perceived the brutal snipping of the spines of a newborn after abortion. did you know it was murder, sistant district attorney, asked ex-clinic worker, linda williams, referring to the clinic's snipping the spines of babies born alive during abortion procedures? no, i didn't, said williams, 44. one of on to say that her duties was to retrieve

fetuses from women who would sometimes spontaneously abort in the waiting room after receiving large doses of drugs. a woman expelled the second trimuster fetus and it was moving. williams took a pair of scissors and snipped the spine as gosnell showed her. i did it once, she said, and i didn't do it again because it gave me the creeps. r. speaker, let me conclude, dr. andy harris, a few moments ago talked about the bioth cis-- bioethcis said that after-birth abortion is justified because the newborn or the children who had been out of the womb for even weeks had the same moral stature, and that is none, than an unborn child. hose two bioethecis says, it

is inextricably linked to the de-evaluation of the unborn. they said, and this is their quote, they propose that this practice of after-birth abortion rather be called that rather than fantasize in order to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed, that is to say the baby, is comparable to that of the fetus whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is all about. so the choice to kill, extended to the point of snipping the spines of children who are born and struggling and gasping for breath and for some kind of outreach of hands that would save that child, but it wasn't there, that is now being prosecuted as it ought to be as murder. our hope is that the blackout of this trial of kermit gosnell will end. it is ongoing. it's occurring today. it's occurring every day. i don't know how long it will take. to the cbs, abc and

major news media "the washington post," "new york times" and others, just tell the story. keep your editorials on the editorial page. you're absolutely entitled to that. don't let that creep on to and bleed onto the other pages. just tell the story and the indifference, again, and the lack of coverage suggests a cover-up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus. we are here today to talk about the specific item in the president's budget and that item is the changed c.p.i. in social security.

the changed c.p.i. is an idea that originated with the republicans and was included in the president's budget as a way to try to convince them to come to the table and have a budget for the nation, but the changed c.p.i. is more than that. we have a problem with the way the c.p.i. works. no one in the real world talks about it. it's like sequester. i don't know a single person who tells their child, i'm going to sequester your toys. this is another washington idea and what that idea is in layman's term is essentially a cut in how people will receive the cost of living increase for social security. a real important way to talk about this is currently the consumer price index is how we determine any increases that people receive social security. when you do the chained c.p.i., it takes the rate that we provide for that cost of living

increase and changes the cost of living increase in a different way that makes it a smaller increase, the people that receive that. particularly for seniors, the disabled and children who are receiving social security, seniors especially pay about 20% to 30% of their incomes on health care and health care costs have risen more than the consumer price index, the cost of living increases people have had. doing the changed c.p.i., essentially, it is a cut in social security to people who eed it the most. there is a former senator from the state of minnesota, hubert humphrey, who once said, the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handy capped. -- handicapped. our moral test today is social

security. it's our moral promise to seniors for their economic security, that promise comes in the form of social security. it's also our promise to veterans, to people with disabilities, and to our children and orphans in this country. if we break that american promise by moving to a chained c.p.i., it will have real consequences to real people. now, granted, this was a republican proposal that the president included. this is the republican idea that the president included in his budget in order to try to get them to the table. but nonetheless, it is a bad idea no matter where it comes from. let me give you a little example about the amount of cuts that would be provided on average to some seniors through this. the benefits for someone who's 75 years old would see $658 less a year. if you're 85 years old, you would see $1,147 less a year.

if you're a 95-year-old, you ould see $1,622 less a year. and for our 3.2 million disabled veterans of this country who sacrificed for our country, it means they would see a reduced disability and social security benefits as well. and these cuts grow deeper and deeper as i explained, the older you get, but they are especially hard on women in this country. women have longer life expectancies, they rely more on their income for social security and they already are more economically vulnerable than men. let me give you an example of what this means in real terms. my mother is 84 years old. my father died in 1991. and she has been alone all those years, living on social security. right now i called her, i asked her specifically what she gets from social security every month. she gets $1,101 a month.

hat comes out to $13,212 annually. now, i asked her to break out her expenses for me. i went through every possible expense that we could. just to get an idea of what it's like to be 84 and to be on a modest income. i grew up in a lower middle class familiar, she's already gone -- family, she's already gone through most of her savings, living to 84. and her mother lived to 101. should her genes hold out, her savings will definitely not hold out. to that amount of time. first of all, her utilities, her gas and electric and her water bill comes to $130 a month. her groceries, she said she spends $40 to $50 a week that. comes to on average $180 a month. her health care, the average

senior's health care is 20% to 30% of their income. that's why the chained c.p.i. is especially hard on seniors but it's such a large percent of their income because so much of their income goes to health care. whether it's co-payments, prescription drugs or other needs. so, at that income of $13,212, let's just go right down the middle, take 25%, that's $275. on average a month. her car insurance and home insurance averages out to $77 a month. 85. property taxes are $3,2 she's fortunate she owns her home but she has property taxes that come to $273 a month on average. her phone and cable bill ombined comes to $140 a month. she has to have help doing her

snow shoveling, her mowing her grass and other err rants around the house. that come -- err ands around the house -- errands around the house, that comes to $150 -- that comes to $50 a month. her gas is about $40 a month. $1,165. d total is that means she is underwater. she's in the red by $64 a month. that is before other expenses. now, she is fortunate that she doesn't have a mortgage anymore. but could you imagine if you had a mortgage and on top that have $1,165 you added another $600, $800, $1,000, $1,2 u.n.00 a month? -- $1,200 a month? she has her car paid for but it's from the 1990's. if that car was a payment, $200

or $300 a month. add that on top. she was telling me about repairs. she spent $1,700 fixing her furnace at her home. that's not calculated in all of her other monthly expenses. car repairs, etc. the bottom line is, that $1,101 a month, that's see lengthsy what she lives on and one in three seniors live on that social security payment every month. you cannot afford to lose at her age range over $100 a month. at $100 a month, that means she's either cutting back on her food, cutting back on her medicine, turning the thermostat down in winter, or up in the summer. but it has real-life implications on people who can afford it the least. people like my 84-year-old mother and millions of seniors across this country. now, there are some in this body who try to rewrite history. they are trying to say that our economic woes, our deficit, is somehow caused by social

security. and nothing could be farther from the truth. social security by law cannot contribute one dime to our deficit. now, are there long-term issues with social security? well, long-term, we do have to make sure that we're making sure that those funds are available in the future. but there are other ways we can do that. but the chained c.p.i. nearly extendses the social security program for two years. those cuts, those real cuts to every single senior who receives those payments are real dollars that people will lose. now, i respect the president's desire to achieve a comprehensive and bipartisan budget proposal. i'm one of the freshmen in this building. i came from a state legislature. when we did a state budget, i used to be the co-chair of that committee, we spent eight hours a day, three days a week, for three or four months crafting a budget. and every single line that have budget meant something. -- line of that budget manhattan something. it's a moral -- meant

something. it's a moral statement of your values as a government. this government hasn't had a budget to work off of for a number of years. we just can't seem to get people on both sides of the aisle, in both houses, to be able to sit down and have a document that guides the country. so the president in an effort to do that said, i heard the discussions we've had on the fiscal cliff, on the debt ceiling, on the sequester, he's listened to the people on the other side of the aisle. and one of the things that's been asked for by the speaker of this chamber and others, is the chained c.p.i. a cut in social security benefits. so the president included it in his budget in order to try to bring them to the table. now, i sat through the budget committee today which i serve on here in the house. and i can tell you it was not bringing people to the table. instead, no surprise, it just brought criticism from the republicans on the president's budget in general. so, i think the president does not need to keep chained c.p.i. in his budget proposal. it is a break, i believe, to

the promise that week of made to seniors about what they will see from us. in fact, 107 people in this house, democrats in this house, including myself, have signed a letter to the president explicitly stating that we don't want to see any cuts to social security, medicare or medicaid. and if i can, let me just read a little bit of this letter to you that was signed by a majority of the house democrats back in february. we thank the president for standing strong on the american taxpayer relief act to protect social security, medicare and medicaid from benefit cuts that would jeopardize the well-being of millions of americans. we write to affirm our vigorous opposition to cutting social security, medicaid or medicare benefits in any final bill to replace sequester. earned social security and medicare benefits provide the financial and health protections necessary to keep individuals and families out of poverty.

medicaid is not only a lifeline for low-income children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and families, it is the primary source of income of long-term care services and supports for 3.6 million individuals. we cannot overstate their sponsor for our constituents and our country. that is why we remain deeply opposed to proposals to reduce social security benefits through use of the chained c.p.i., to calculate cost of living adjustments. we remain committed to making the changes that will extend solvency for 75 years. but social security is not -- has not contributed to our current fiscal problems and it should not be on the bargaining table. and then it goes on to discuss medicare and medicaid. we have been very explicit that there are other ways that we can extend the solvency of social security. remember, it did not cause the financial situation this country is in right now. that was an economic uncertainty caused by the

financial institutions and the housing crisis that put every state in this country into fiscal chaos. but that was not caused one dime by social security. so for us to balance the budget on the backs of the seniors and disabled and the receipt veatrans and children who receive -- and the veterans and children who receive social security doesn't make sense. there is something that makes sense. currently we take social security portion out of every person's check to pay for social security. it is your earned benefit, you pay in and every paycheck to social security, so that when you need it, it is available for you. whether it be retirement or through disability. at $113,700 you are capped when you make that much income, no more, not one dollar more in income do you pay additional dollars into social security. if we lift that cap and like so many other provisions you continue to pay taxes on your

salary, so if you make $500,000, you don't just stop in paying social security, but would you continue to pay into social security like you do on all your other taxes, that would extend the solvency of social security for at least 75 years. now, that is a commonsense way for us to make sure a program that is probably one of the most popular and crucial programs the federal government offers to its citizens, that we've all paid into, our money, our social contract, our insurance for when we need it we have it, can be extended simply by lifting that cap. and that would go a long way, a long way to providing the economic certainty that we need. so, while we are supportive of so many of the measures that the president has in his budget , the president's budget focuses on what we need to, which is the immediate need to make sure that we are improving

the economy and we are creating jobs. that is our focus that we need to do in this country. in fact, the congressional budget office, which is our nonpartisan agency, that we work with, both democrats and republicans work with to get the financial numbers that we work with on our bills and to make all the decisions we make, they said that 3/4 of this nation's deficit in the next year, that we're all talking about a budget for, 2014, is caused by economic weakness. in other words, unemployment and underemployment. if we addressed those two issues, that is the best way to stop the trajectory of the deficit and the debt. by getting people back to work you can do that. and i'll tell you, in this budget, the president does much of that. the president includes extra funding for research and development. we've been told by businesses, the best thing we can do to be competitive in a global market. it includes $50 billion for infrastructure investment. to get people working now, to

have us help stimulate the economy. and i can tell you, when we had the last recovery dollars that happened at the very start of the recovery that we did with this bad economy, when we were at our worst and our lowest point, we were bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month and when that recover dollars came to the states and my committee, the joint committee on finance, we had to approve every single dollar that went into roads and schools and other programs, we had our road building industry and our vertical construction industry in our state tell us that 54,000 jobs were staved or created -- were saved or created because of those dollars. nd i asked the head -- dr. elmendorf from the congressional budget office that question to the budget committee, nationally what did that do for us, those recovery dollars, and they estimate, not the democrat, not the republicans, not anyone else, but our official agency, up to 3.3 million jobs were saved or created because of those

recovery dollars. the president has $50 billion in infrastructure to make sure that people are working again and getting them back out while we need to keep the economy moving. he has focus on advanced manufacturing, some innovative ideas that we can create these hubs where people can create new jobs and have jobs come back to america from overseas. and he also provides tax credits for small business owners who will hire new workers, that we can again continue to have the private sector as well as what we can provide through infrastructure to help get the economy to grow and to create the jobs we need to. these are great provisions that the president has. he's working $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction which on top of the previous $2.5 trillion takes us exactly at the target people have been talking about of the $4 trillion deficit we need to address in the immediate amount of time. and it has the long-term

picture in mind as well. it's not saying the hol combrmbingsgrail of the deficit reduction but the holy grail is the economy and job creation to solve our deficit problem and the budget does that. there are many provisions in the budget. many in this house, 107 people who signed a letter in this house on the democratic side and many of us in the progressive caucus have been especially outspoken about the one provision that we think takes a completely wrong term and that completely -- wrong turn and that completely wrong turn is the chained c.p.i., how we deal with increases of social security, how we deal with the payments in social security. it turns out to be a cut, a real dollar cut to people on social security. and i can tell you they have given us some really better ways to illustratively explain what those cuts mean. if you take the cuts under chained c.p.i., and you are 65

years old, that cut will be about two weeks' worth of groceries. when you're 70, it's about six weeks' worth of groceries. and it continues to grow. at 75, nine weeks' worth of groceries. at 80, 13 weeks of groceries. that's a quarter of the year that you have less for groceries that you need to get by. at 85, people like my mother, 16 weeks of groceries. and if you make it to 90 and 95, 20 and 20 weeks of groceries. that -- 23 weeks of groceries. that's the cuts in real term that comes from chained c.p.i. so we stand to make sure that we are raising the issue that as we continue to talk about the budget -- and we need to go to conference committee. we have a house budget, we have a senate budget, we have the president's budget, but you know what that means? we have no budget. that means we'll continue to

have continuing resolutions, we'll continue to fight every two to three months and have stopgap measures with chewing gum and band-aids unless we have a budget. the president is making us come to the table to do this, and his intention was to take a republican idea, chained c.p.i., put it in his proposal to show he's willing to compromise. unfortunately all we've heard from the republicans has been criticism of the budget. they still in the house seem to think their budget that is a fantasy as far as balancing the budget in 10 years as they claim, fantasy because it repeals the affordable care act benefits, which includes making sure people with pre-existing conditions have health care, making sure people up to the age of 26 have health care, making sure we have preventive care, it repeals the benefits. we can't tax the people for the affordable care act so we can pay for the benefits but not

give them and keep that money and try to balance the budget. so it's not a real budget. but what we need to do is have a real budget, and we need to get people to the table. and i urge this house to announce conferees so we can start the hard work of doing that. we now have the three positions around the table we need to do that. but we want to stay strongly, the progressive caucus, and 107 democrats in this body that the one thing that is unacceptable is to balance that budget on the backs of people who didn't create the crisis. and that's our seniors, disabled, our veterans and our children and orphans who rely on social security. and the chained c.p.i. will provide just that sort of a cut to those people. so mr. speaker, those are some of the strongest problems that we have with the change in the

consumer price index which is called chained c.p.i. there are a number of organizations, mr. speaker, that have joined us in this. they range from everywhere of pccc, to o to the moveon and a number of national organizations that have stood with us in multiple press conferences this week that try to raise awareness that this is a bad idea. this is taking the budget situation we have in the future and balancing it today on those who can least afford it. we need to have the backs of our seniors and our disabled not put the budget on their backs. and the chained c.p.i. is a provision that unfortunately does just that. so while it's not the president's idea, it's absolutely not the democrats' idea, it was an idea proposed by the republican speaker and other republicans just in the last couple of years, it was

put forward in the president's budget to try to bring people to the table. we want to make sure, heard loud and clear, that many of us will mott support a bill that includes the chained -- that will not support a bill that includes the chained c.p.i. it will not get the support if it includes those cuts to seniors. mr. speaker, it is a huge concern to those of us in the progressive caucus. there are a number of groups, including strength social security, who join us in our effort against this, they say for someone who is 75 years old, the cut they will see will be about $658, which is 3.7% of what they're currently receiving. if you're 85, they estimate that is $1,087 a year. to my mother who is getting that $1,101, that is about $100 cut a month.

as i estimated through from her utilities to her groceries to her own payments that she has, none of those are necessarily luxuries at 85. none of those are excessive payments. they are the basic payments just to get by that she comes up with for about $1,165 a month. fter burning through savings for 20 years, she doesn't have it left. so like a third of americans who live on that social security check, they live on $1,101. they live on that $13,2012 a year. and i don't think there's anyone who could honestly say that that's too much. after you paid in your entire life and it's your earned benefit that you paid into, that insurance for when you need it for when you're a senior and you retire, when you become disabled or god forbid your family, your parents die and now you're an orphan, that

payment is this country's promise to each and every one of those people. so to go after that $13,000 payment to this 84-year-old person and get that 6.5% cut, that means real things. i remember a few years back before in wisconsin we created -- about a decade ago a program called senior care to help seniors afford prescription drugs. it's been a great success with bipartisan support. prior to that my mother was one of those people who cut pills in half because she couldn't afford her medication. she doesn't have to any more because of senior care, but we're the only state, wisconsin, that has senior care in the entire country. there are seniors in the other 49 states who if they get that cut that means cutting pills in half, that means deciding which pills you're taking, it means deciding which meal you're not eating. it means those sort of basic, basic cuts. it's estimated at 95 years old,

according to strengthen social security, it's a $1,622 cut. that's a 9.2% cut that we're balancing the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it, who didn't create the financial times we're in. and that seems entirely wrong. what that means in a lifetime, your cumulative benefit loss is, and that's where it really starts to add up and maybe this will be morill straightive, at 7 -- will be more illustrative, at 75, you've lost $4,601. at 80 you lost $8,660. at 85, people like my mother, she's lost $13,910 of what she's paid into and expected to get for her twilight years. that's the enormity of these cuts, and i have been joined by an extremely articulate and solid progressive colleague of mine, a mentor of mine and

someone who is a strong leader not only in this entire house but especially today in this hour with our progressive caucus, i would like to yield some time to the representative from california, ms. barbara lee. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank the gentleman for your kind words and for your tremendous leadership and for coordinating the message hour of the week really on behalf not only of the progressive caucus but this entire body and for the american people. it's so important that the truth be told and that we continue to beat the drum to protect the priorities of all of the american people, not just a few. so thank you very much. now, we're here today to talk about the budget and the priorities and also some of the issues that are very troubling which i'll mention in just a minute. i'm pleased, though, to see the president budget clearly understands the need to create jobs and to grow our economy. this budget makes critical investments in early childhood

education and brings down the costs of higher education. the budget protects vital nutrition programs, like snap and w.i.c. this budget permanently extends vital expansions of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit which for millions of families have lifted -- i think it's about 1.6 million americans out of poverty in 2010 alone. in stark contrast, our republican colleagues propose yet another $6 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest while focusing a majority of their draconian budget cuts on shredding our nation's safety net. every member of congress may claim to support the goal of cutting poverty in america, but gutting programs that families rely on to put food on their tables is simply not how we achieve that goal. now as i said, i was very pleased to see some of the innovative and groundbreaking proposals that the president included in his budget.

however, i have to join mr. pocan in our strong opposition to the inclusion of the so-called chained c.p.i. in the budget. as many of us have said, chained c.p.i. is a benefit cut, which it is, to social security and i wholeheartedly oppose it. so thank you, again, for beating that drum today on this because this is not the president's ideal deficit reduction plan. we should not be bargaining for republican goodwill with problems for our seniors. social security provided economic security to generations to americans who had made contributions over their lifetime, they worked for this. changing the cost-of-living adjustment now will disproportionately hurt seniors who rely on every single dollar of support as income. the chained c.p.i. would cut

one full month income from a 92-year-old beneficiary's annual social security benefits. seniors cannot afford that. the chained c.p.i. will also cut living standards and most deeply for the poorest households which tend to rely on social security for all or most of their income. the fact of the matter is social security should not even be a part of this discussion. it should not be a part of this budget. the program has accumulated assets of $2.7 trillion and does not contribute to the federal budget deficit. voters across the political spectrum oppose cuts to medicare, medicaid and social security benefits, and we must do whatever it takes to protect these vital benefits from cuts. democrats believe that the best way to reduce our deficit and make our economy grow is to create jobs. that's why i join my c.p.c. colleagues in rejecting any and every cut to medicare, medicaid

or social security benefits, including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost-of-living adjustments that our constituents earned and that they need. we also know there are commonsense reforms that would reduce health care costs and save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars without cutting benefits. if republicans are serious about deficit reduction, we really can make additional savings, and they should come from those who can most afford it. we can save over $110 billion just by eliminating wasteful subsidies to oil corporations who have already made record profits. we can close corporate tax loopholes. that would save billions of dollars to invest in education. and we can end wasteful pentagon weapons programs that would focus our military on addressing 21st century threats. so there are many ways we can accomplish this. instead of supporting policies that harm seniors, let's get back to the real problems facing our country and that's

creating 21st century jobs and growing our economy for all. so thank you again. thank you for your leadership. this has been a tremendous hour that you have put together, and i hope that the american people are listening today. so much is at stake. mr. pocan: thank you so much, ms. lee. really appreciate it. again, your history in this house has been recognized by so many of us who are new and proud to be here. we appreciate all that you've done on behalf of the middle class and those who are striving to be in the middle class and those who are just getting by in this country and much appreciated. ms. lee is leading an initiative to address poverty. it's under your leadership that that's been happening. we are joined by another colleague who is from california who has been another one of our freshmen members of the house and he is here to talk to us also about the issues before us on chained c.p.i. and perhaps some other issues. i'd like to introduce from the state of california, mr. mark

takano. mr. takano: thank you. i will be speaking about equal pay. today i signed the discharged petition to bring the paycheck fairness act to the floor to ensure that women across the country receive equal pay for equal work. this week on use it we recognized the equal payday which is the day that marks the time it takes for women's earnings to equal men's earnings from the previous year. thanks to the 23% wage gap, it takes an extra three months for women in america to catch up. the wage gap persists at all levels of education and exists across occupations. in my home state of california, the typical woman working full time year-round is paid on average only 84 cents to every $1 her male counterparts make. in my home district, the pay discrepancy is even worse. women living in the empire make

81 cents to every $1 and many are the sole bread winners in their households. this isn't just an insult to women who work hard at their jobs every day, it hurts families and children. in my district, the wage gap amounts to an average loss of $8,900 that could be used to pay for rent, groceries and child care. this is unacceptable. when president kennedy signed the equal pay act into law, he criticized the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job. 50 years later, this unconscionable practice is alive and well which is why we have a duty to our mothers, sisters and daughters to pass the paycheck fairness act this congress. i yield back. mr. pocan: thank you. would you yield to a question? mr. takano: yes, sir. mr. pocan: i want to ask you. you've been a leader in this body on chained c.p.i. we did several press

conferences this week. you're the author of a major letter from many people in this house about it. could you just address a little bit about why you're so passionate about the need to make sure we have social security for generations in the future and why you oppose the chained c.p.i.? mr. takano: i believe chained c.p.i. bad for veterans and it's bad for our seniors. but let me focus on the seniors for a moment. the chained c.p.i., explained in a very simple way, is a way index e government would social security, cost of living increases. said very simply, under chained c.p.i., seniors would be paid less over time. the assumption is that seniors would be able to substitute more -- less costly items for the current items they might currently buy. but seniors really use health care a lot more than the rest of us and that's the largest

burden that they're facing, is trying to pay foyer their health care costs, prescription drugs. i think it's a false premise to say that seniors will be able to find less costly substitutions. more and more of their income will be going to that. i believe that many people call social security, medicare entitlements. i call them sacred promises that we made to our seniors. i don't believe that we should break those promises. we must keep those promises, people have earned these benefits over a lifetime. they planned their lives around them. and we simply can't go back on what we've promised our parents and grandparents. mr. pocan: thank you. thank you, representative takano, again, for your leadership on this issue. as i said, you've authored one of the major lets they're out there talking about chained c.p.i. and cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid.

and also as a member of the veterans committee, i know you've been especially articulate on the effects on veterans and i thank you for your time. mr. takano: thank you, sir. mr. pocan: as representative takano said, these are sacred promises to people who have paid into the programs and now the expectation is, as with any insurance, you've paid in and now you're able to get the benefit when you need it. that's why you've paid in all your life. and that benefit is for people who retire and for people who become disabled. and, god forbid, children who become orphaned. it allows them to be able to continue in our society to get by. but as i've shown, an 84-year-old woman like my mother, this is my mother's actual story, gets $1,101 a month. that's $13,212 a year. we went through her expenses from utilities, $130 a month, food and other miscellaneous items she has to buy, $180 a

month. health care, it's about 20% to 30% of the average senior's monthly expense. their income. i'll take it right in the middle, 25%, that's $275 a month. her car and house insurance, $77 a month. her taxes, $273 a month. her phone and cable, $140 a month. miscellaneous, having people mow her grass and shovel, etc., $50 a month. and her gas, about $40 a month. that's $64 a month more than she makes and unfortunately she has at the age of 84, having been widowed since 1991, expended through almost all of her savings. and like 1/3 of seniors living on that social security paycheck. but what about the senior who's in the exact same situation, receiving and living off that check, but they still pay rent? or have a mortgage?

$600 to $1,200 more you're going to have to add onto that. and what if they have a car or they have a bus pass? $200 to $300 a month you're going to add onto that. miscellaneous repairs, my mother this year had to replace her heater at $1,700. how do you do that with a cut in social security? so, additional expenses, still, on the low end, add that up, you're almost at $2,000 a month. there's no way that $100 hit that will happen is something that the average senior or person with disabilities, veteran, or child can get by. that is a real-life cut. and where they have to cut and make tough decisions is on their groceries, on their medicine, on whether or not they're going to be able to drive the car that they have. it's serious consequences. and i know that the democrats

have been especially strong on the progressive caucus. the progressive caucus penned a letter that 107 democrats in this house signed onto. that said, do not do any cuts to social security, medicare or medicaid. now, there are some who say that you can't ignore it, that in the future, far down the road, decades in the future, we have to make sure that these programs, these earned benefits are still alive. but we have argued there are ways to do that. if you lift the cap at which you pay into social security, you could extend it, the program, social security, for 75 years into the future. remember, social security has not added one dime to the deficit. by law it can't add one dime to the deficit. but instead we are balancing the budget with this provision on the backs of the very people who can least afford it. so, the senior who makes $1,101

is going to see a cut, but the company that sends jobs overseas under the republican budget still gets a tax break for sending jobs overseas. and that c.e.o. with the corporate jet, still gets a tax break under the republican budget. and when you go down the list of breaks that are out there for the most wealthy, we need to find a different way to do this than balancing the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it, those who have paid in their entire lives, those who didn't create the financial situation we're in. our progressive caucus has been strong. in talking about this we have tried to take quite a bit of time today to really explain this as plainly as we can and as absolute simply as we can, as a person's monthly budget. we all know you have other surprise expenses like your heater goes out on your home, your car needs repair.

we don't even factor that in. most people will probably still have rent or perhaps a house payment to make. when you add all this in and if you have expended your savings like 1/3 of our seniors who live on that social security check, it is impossible to continue to get by and to take a cut to the very people who can least afford it seems wrong. we are honored in our progressive caucus to have two people that lead us, representative grijalva, and representative keith ellison. representative keith ellison is a fellow midwesterner. i think a man of incredible common sense coming from the midwest. we like to at least think we do back in the midwest, coming here. and he has done an extraordinary job of leading the progressives and the democrats in this house to make sure that we stand up for our seniors and our disabled and our veterans and the children who need social security.

i would like to yield some time if i could to the chairman of the progressive caucus, mr. keith ellison. mr. ellison: well, congressman pocan, thank you, and thanks for holding down this very important progressive caucus progressive message. the fact is that the progressive caucus and the democrats generally, we're about protecting seniors. that's who we are. that's a brand. that's our identity. social security came out of the roosevelt administration, came out of core democratic values. that's what we stand for, that's what we believe in. and that's why we are standing opposed to the chained c.p.i. we're not going to relent, we've been fighting this thing for months. we're not going to give up the fight, we're going to keep on pressing until this thing is settled. the reality is that this chained c.p.i. takes place within the general debate on budget. a general debate on fiscal items. and i happen to know that the chained c.p.i. isn't an idea

that emerged from republican leaders. only a few months ago. that's who came up with this. and so now the president has offered a budget in which he says, ok, we're going to try to compromise from the beginning. we're going to try to take some compromised ideas and put it in here along with some other good ideas like early childhood education, like investing in infrastructure and jobs, those things are ok. but i think it was a mistake to ever include anything about social security in the budget because social security does not contribute to the deficit. and so if you want to deal with lifting the is sequester, deal with something that -- the sequester, deal with something that has to do with taxing and spending. if you want to deal with the budget, deal with something that adds to or takes away from the budget. if you want to deal with deficit reduction, deal with something that has to do with that. but don't drag in something that is actually irrelevant. you know, the fact is that the social security is one of the oldest, best programs that this country has ever seen and it

has taken care literally of millions of people, it's not an entitlement, it's an earned benefit program, it is social insurance. people pay into it. they earn it and then they pay into it and then they expect it in the end years of their lives. you know, congressman pocan, i think it's important just to point out, you know, that a full 1/3 of women, widowed women on social security, rely entirely on social security. so as some people like to say, well, chained c.p.i. is not that big of a cut. well, it depends on how much money you have, now, doesn't it? it depends on what you start with. if you're getting by on $13,000 a year or under $20,000 a year, well, you know what? $250 may seem like a lot of money. my own experience as a member of congress is that people would ask me at community meetings all the time, are we going to get our check, that

$250? why? because that's a lot of money to folks who are really trying to get by. and so what i'm saying is, let's embrace our core democratic values. let's look out for our seniors. let's take care of this great program, social security, that has done so much for so many for so long. and let's reject this idea of chained c.p.i. and let's stand together and say that chained c.p.i. is not a good idea, it's not something that we should offer as a bargaining chip for a grand bargain. let's take it off the table. i yield back to the gentleman but i'll be here. mr. pocan: thank you, thank you, mr. ellison. and as a leader of the progressive caucus, i have been talking about how 107 democrats in this house, at the leadership of the congressional progressive caucus, have signed a letter and asked the president not to cut social security, medicare or medicaid. so the majority of the democrats have already signed a letter saying, keep the hands off. as we deal with our nation's

budget, the one place we shouldn't go is to those who need it the most. our seniors, the disabled, our veterans and their children and orphans who receive social security benefits. and as i talked about the realities of that $1,101 a month, as mr. ellison just said, when you receive that additional $100 cut, that additional $100 cut is almost 10% of your budget. . if you had a 10% cut in your budget, and you weren't able to make any more money. my mom is 84, and she's not going back to taco bell. she worked there in her 70's because she didn't have enough money, just to have something to get by on. now she's already had a couple of falls. she has to make that tough cut. i would argue that this bad idea

that the republicans came up with, the president included, just to get them to the table, to talk about the budget, this bad republican idea, change c.p.i., will have a real effect on tens of millions of people across this country. there way too many seniors for whom this means just about everything in their life. she can't really cut her utilities. she can change the thermostat, she can set it to 60 in wenter, not use any air-conditioning in summer, wisconsin, i wouldn't recommend that in summer, we have some humid, humid days, so you can't cut this. her groceries and other things she has to buy for the home, she can cut back but already tells me stories, there's a place in her neighborhood they have $1 burger special. she'll go there and i asked her, this is going back years over the holidays, we had to convince her to tip 35 cents because she

said that's 35%. i don't tip 35%. we're trying to explain to her in the economics of it, it's 35 cents. but she gets a burger for a dollar, she said sometimes i get two. she's deciding a bt a $2 meal. are we going to take away that from someone, the very grocery they live on? health care, with rising health care costs, and with the tissue the facts are 20% to 30%, 26% is the current number, of your health care cost as a senior, of your annual cost, she can't change that line. insurance, does she not insure a vehicle? does she not insure her home in case of fire? that's $77 a month. we all know you can't get away with not paying your taxes. that line is off the table. i'm going to jump town a line. her miscellaneous, she has to have people shovel and do things around the home. that's a hard change. that's only a $50 item.

finally, gas, she doesn't control the price of gas. she only line she has left is her telephone and her cable bill. and if the way we have to deal with the budget rather than making those who can most afford in this country and all the tax loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, instead we're going to this 84-year-old woman and say you can no longer have a telephone to talk to your family and friends on, you're going to lose the little bit of entertainment you have through your television, that seems wrong. it's not the values of this country, not the values of the democrats in this house. yet that's what they'll say with the c.p.i. cut. haas the bottom line. when those other expenses come up, how does a senior pay for them? so we really want to express to the president, in the strongest possible terms, the republicans

may have had this bad idea of chain c.p.i. to provide cut to social security payment but you included it in your fwouget bring them to the table to make them negotiate, and all you've heard for the last 48 hours, or 36 hours, is criticism that they won't sit at the table. the fact that you've got dollars in the budget to help grow the economy, the progressive caucus had a back-to-work budget. we worked hard and stead -- we were steadfast in talking about growing our economy as the best way to solve the deficit and our economic problems. but if the republicans are going to criticize that and refuse to have one more dime in revenue, not one more c.e.o. can't still get his tax break for that corporate jet, not one more company can't get that tax break for sending jobs overseas, those are the types of tax breaks we have in this country. and if we can't get one more dime from programs like that, so

that a senior doesn't have to make the tough, real-life decisions, then we're failing. as a government. and we are breaking our promise to the seniors of this country. so i would hope that we can continue to get people who are watching, to realize it may be called chain c.p.i., may have an obscure term, we came up with the se test -- sequester, it's term, it's in the dictionary but not one person i know of has ever used it in real life. in one has said to their child, aisle going to sequester your toys today. it's just not something real people do. chain c.p.i. is the same thing. it may be an obscure economic term but the bottom line, the reality of what it means to the average person listening, it means a cut to those who can least afford it. to those third of seniors who

live on that check exclusively to get by. and all the other seniors who rely so largely on that to get by but should they have the good fortune to grow old, they'll have the bad fortune of seing that savings go down. as they have these expenditures. in the end, we have made a promise, a sacred promise as antidepressant i takano said, to the people of this country, that is, we take their money for sths through their earned benefits they paid into, we have put up a social insurance program to ensure that when they retire or become disabled or god forbid lose their parents and become an orphan, they will can't to have an ability to live in this country. it's not those people that created our financial woes that this country has. there are real ways to deal with

the deficit. there are real ways to deal with social security. but those real ways are not the ways that are proposed through the chain c.p.i. in fact, another thing that was said, i believe by ms. lee of california, she talked about on this floor, we have other people trying to fix social security. we had 104 members of the other side of the aisle vote for a version of the budget that raised the social security retirement tige 70. -- age to 70. i don't know many construction workers or nurses or teachers who can necessarily still be able to do that job as well as they would like to between 67 and 70. i just -- in the construction field, there are not -- there's not the ability to d that job. as a nurse, when you have to lift bodies and help move people, you can't do that job for those additional years. but to me, to raise the social security retirement age, is,

again, part of breaking that promise. there is a way we can continue the promise. and that's to lift the cap on social security. right now, no matter how much you make, we we tax for social security up to 113,-- up to $113,700. as soon as you make a dollar more you don't get taxed for social security. we tax in every other way in a progressive way, as you make more, you pay more in taxes. but we don't tax a dime more at $113,700. if we were simply to lift that cap or raise that amount, you would extend social security for decades. in fact, if you lift the cap entirely, it is estimated at least 75 years of life would go into the social security program. wouldn't that make a lot more sense than instead nickel and diming those who can least afford to to preserve the program? that is the hope of this

progressive caucus, that we have. you've heard from a number of leaders, both freshmen and eem who have been here for -- and people who have been here for a listening time. you've heard from people in different parts of the country. it is an important promise that we have to the public and we are the party that has been there to protect seniors. and the fact that the president has included in his budget, we all know and the president has been clear, this is not his idea. this was an idea from the republicans, from the republican speaker and other republicans, and he put it in his budget proposal to try to get them to come and finally have a budget for this country. to make them come to the table. right now, we have very different documents. we have the democratic document in the senate and the president's document, that tries to create jobs and grow the economy right now. we have a republican version of the budget that focuses almost

exclusively on getting throifed deficit. the holy grail of the deficit that will cost us millions of jobs just in the next year. it's estimated that millions of jobs will be lost. you can't have those diverse documents and continue to fund congress. we continue to have continuing resolutions that get us by for months at a time. i have heard on this floor so many times people talk about wasteful programs, and there are wasteful programs in the federal government we should address there is a g.a.o. report that specifically outlines about 45 areas of duplication, we're doing the same thing adross -- across different agencies. we have a foe couns the government and oversight reform committee to find waste, fraud, and abuse wherever we can and we are working on that. when you don't have a budget that says we're going to cut these programs to fund these programs work epunt. and as a government, we have punted far too many times.

we have not had a serious budget in place. so the president's goal is indeed sincere, that he wants -- wants people to come to the table. so i perhaps would have waited and compromised until we got to the table but the president in this case put their request right in his budget and put it on the table. the problem is, that is a bad compromise. there are so many other things we can do that will better serve the public than to cut the benefits from our seniors and our veterans and our disabled and the children and orphans who rely on social security. so mr. speaker, our progressive caucus has been here for the -- close to the last hour, to make sure we are talking about an important program that the public, i'm sure, is concerned about. i know i'm getting the calls in my office. we really plead with the president to make sure that as we move forward and try to bring the republicans to the table, to

try to have a national budget as we all need to, do not balance that budget on the backs of those who can least afford it. and mr. speaker, with that, i would yield back any time i have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. well, i know the intention of my other side of the aisle, we all want the country to run at maximum peak performance so people have jobs, but it's interesting the ways we have about going about trying to see

that that happens. interesting, in fact, we got the president's budget yesterday, of course it took two months or so beyond what the law says that the president must do. we also know that when it comes to people being in the country illegally, the president decided that he didn't like the laws that were passed by congresses of the past, both democrat and republican, signed into law by presidents both democrat and republican, and so president obama got up and did what you don't normally find in a country with representative government, he just announced, i don't like the law the way it is, so here's the new law and basically pronounced new law into being with regard to who will be

allowed to have amnesty in the country and that program is already -- has already started. in the past, the founders' intent was well carried out because i've been advised by people who worked here in democratic majorities as democratic leaders and republican leaders of the past who said, yes, in the past if you had a president stand up and say, i'm choosing to ignore the law -- the law that has been passed by prior congresses, signed into being by other presidents, i'm going to ignore those and just pronounce new law so as i say it, so shall i -- so shall it be. if you had a president that acted like that, both democratic and republican leaders would get together and they would head down pennsylvania avenue, that way, and they would announce themselves and let the president know that either he would begin to comply with the law and stop

doing what is solely the responsibility of congress, or they would cut off all funding to everything he cared about. and that would take care of it. unfortunately, these days, the president, those in power in the white house and executive branch, have noted that since the democratic party is the majority in the senate, then even when there are enough people in the republican party in the house who have the nerve to stand up and say, we will no longer allow violations of the law or creations of the law out of whole cloth without following the constitution, the senate would stop those actions because they're not going to let anything like that pass the senate and therefore we have bureaucrats who begin to announce to elected members of this government that they really

don't care what we have to say, that we're not going to stop them from doing whatever they want because the senate will block anything we try to do here at the house. . because this is a divided capitol building with the senate in the majority of democratic hands and the house in the republican majority control, it is very important that we note what the other branch, the presidency, is pronouncing. under the president's proposed budget, there is a -- an . ticle here, april 10 it says, the o.m.b. historical tables have revealed the white house does not expect this administration to ever run an annual deficit as low as $458.5

billion, which was the deficit the government ran in fiscal twathe, the last fiscal year complete -- 2008, the last fiscal year completed before obama took office. it's also important to note that in 2006, the last year republicans were in control of properly we were ridiculed by democrats on this side of the aisle because we ran $160 billion or so budget. over -- spending over the amount that was coming in. hat we had $160 billion in deficit spending and the democrats were correct. we should not have had $160 billion in deficit spending. having no idea that the promises from the friends on this side of the aisle who said, if you will just put us

in the majority, we'll cut that $160 billion deficit spending the republicans have done and we will get a balanced budget. we won't deficit spend. who would have believed that when they took over as a majority, that within two years they would have tripled, basically tripled the amount of deficit spending, so much for the promise that we're going to cut deficit spending, so the 60 billion or so went to $458.5 billion, about tripled the deficit, and then who could have possibly imagined that during president obama's first year in office, when democratic control was of both the house and the senate, that they would have the nerve to not run $160 billion deficit, as they said

they would never do, or the $458 billion deficit, nearly three times as much as 2008, but that they would go 10 times that amount of $160 billion and hit about $1.6 trillion in deficit spending? i mean, there are several markers being laid down in this ountry that make it very clear crash is country is on a course. there are no seatbelts, there are no harnesses, there are no air bags. e are barreling down this road to a definite end. unless we get this thing under control. and for the president to propose for the first time in

american history that before he leaves office in 2017, under the president's proposed budget , he will preside over the pending of $4.0898 trillion in scal year 2016, it's unbelievable. we've got somewhere between $2.3 trillion, $2.5 trillion that is expected to be coming in to the treasury this year and the president's proposing $3.8 trillion in spending. it is outrageous. and at the same time the president, he's closed down tours, there's no indication that there's actually been even 18,000 or 74,000 or 78 -- $18,000 or $74,000 or $78,000

in savings from not having white house tours. so you begin to wonder, now, wait a minute, you said it was to save all this money, was the reason you cut out white house tours, that it wasn't just a temper tantrum to make people suffer, so let's see, where's the savings? and if there are no secret service being furloughed, there's no secret service being laid off, it would appear there's no savings. so what then could have possibly been the purpose for saying no more white house tours? it actually -- some have said, well, you know, congress is just mad because it complicates their job and those are people saying those types of things that really have no clue what's going on in washington. because the fact is, a member of congress' life, be it democrat or republican, is actually less complicated when you don't have to arrange for

white house tours. it's something that members of congress had taken on voluntarily in order to help the white house. so we would make the arrangements, people would call and come through our office, then we'd have to write requests, beg the white house, can you find enough tickets for these individuals to allow them to go through the white house? and then we would get word back and there for a while it was unpleasant when the president first started because we had trouble getting tickets for anybody the first year to or so. which -- the first year or so which meant that the president got to have people furious with members of congress because they blamed members of congress for not being able to go through the white house on a tour when actually we would

just get notice and only be able to pass that on. so it actually makes members of congress' life far less complicated when we don't have to arrange for white house tours, but the members of congress i know on both the democratic side and the republican side really want to enhance visits from their constituents to washington, d.c., and so we're willing to spend part of our budget to help have somebody help arrange those tours for constituents coming to washington. we help the white house by doing that. and even though our offices, every congressional budget has been cut about 20% over the last three years, we haven't cut out those constituent services. we have one person less in my

office, we just didn't replace by attrition. but we've had to make adjustments. and i'm grateful to have a staff that is willing to work hard and long hours, they don't get paid overtime, but they're willing to do that because they realize this is a servant's job. i am a servant. people that work in my office are servants. and we serve the public and serve at their will. apparently that is not something that all bureaucrats have been able to understand and take to heart. then we also see, big news today, that a gun bill has cleared the senate hurdle as the filibuster falls short. this is a foxnews.com story that was released today. nd it is worth noting that

another story here indicates senator lee says background checks could allow holder, the attorney general, to create gun registry using regulations. in fact, on wednesday it says senator mike lee, republican from utah, fantastic senator that he is, that's a parenthetical insertion, but he took to the senate floor and warned that universal background checks could lead to a national registry system for guns. a quote from a friend, senator lee, is, quote, some of the proposals, like, for example, universal background checks, would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional rights. one of the provisions we expect to see in the bill, based on what we saw in the judiciary committee, on which i sit, would allow the attorney general of the united states, eric holder, to promulgate

regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns. something my constituents in utah are very concerned about and understandably so, unquote, senator lee. lee also said that the government had no place monitoring the legal exercise of any constitutional right a citizen chooses to exercise. quote, you see the federal government has no business monitoring when or how often you go to church, what books and newspapers you read, who you vote for, your health conditions, what -- and actually i have to differ with senator leon health conditions, obamacare conscious lee on ealth conditions, obama -- lee on health conditions. obamacare means you'll have all of your health care records as

well. senator lee goes on, what you eat for breakfast, and the details of your private life, including your lawful exercise of your rights protected by the second amendment and other provisions of the bill of rights. important quotes by senator mike lee. with regard to the gun bill that's being rushed through the senate, it is worth noting again that when bills are rushed through without being given proper scrutiny, we create bad laws, we make mistakes and the country suffers. and the constitution suffers. it's part of our oath that we will protect and defend the constitution of the united states. and i would humbly submit, we don't do that job when we rush through bills that people have not had a chance to read, to participate in. have my friends know, i

on this very floor read quotes from minority leader john boehner who in essence told major garrett that if we get back the majority, a speaker, john boehner, will bring bills through regular sword -- regular order. i'm not going to rush them to the floor. like speaker pelosi has done. and i've had to remind my own leadership of those promises. because we keep rushing through bills as republicans. that people do not have enough time to read. and i'm hoping and praying and arguing, cajoling to try to make sure we stop that process. and that we return to regular order. there's some bad bills that come out of regular order, to be sure. but when we have full debate at a subcommittee level over a proposed bill, and any member of that subcommittee, this is called regular order, any

member that have subcommittee can bring an amendment to any provision in that bill, you get some scrutiny of the bill. in its entirety. and then when we have a markup at the full committee level and any member, republican, democrat, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter if they're on or not on any of the subcommittees, at the full committee, any member of the full committee can bring an amendment to that bill. we took most of the day today marking up a pretty simple bill, i thought. on the issue of reining in overregulation. and getting congress to take a look at the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that come out so regularly from bureaucrats that never see or catch the eye of elected officials. it's a pretty simple bill. it took hours and hours to go through that because there were so many proposed amendments.

and each amendment that gets made has a chance for the proponent to argue for at least five minutes in favor of his amendment and then under the rules any member of the committee can spend up to five minutes on each amendment. and it's not a pretty process. it's not pleasant to sit through. but we get better bills when we go through that process. then it comes to the rules committee. i prefer if the rules committee is really going to allow fully open debate, we have an open amendment process. it's not pretty either. but it gives people across america a chance to see who is advocating for what amendment, what language, and you have had all this time from the subcommittee to the committee to the house floor and every member of the house, no matter who you are are no matter whether you're

in disfavor with the leadership like some of us may be, you can bring amendments in an open process, under regular order. and you have a chance to debate those. and america has a chance to see who is standing for what positions. and it gives them a chance at the next election to better select who they want representing them by virtue of what positions they're taking. but when -- but when it goes through the process it just did through the senate, there's not proper scrutiny and things come to the floor and we're not sure what the impact is. and it can get so ridiculous that you could even have a speaker of the house say, look, we're going to have to pass this bill before we find out what's in it. that's not the way we're supposed to go. we have an obligation to do better than that. now, we've also gotten word that

-- from the sequester that hit here just recently, this is an article by elizabeth harrington dated april 9, this week, safe om sequester, $704,198 for gardening at nato ambassador's home that should be a nice garden. i like to work in the yard around our house, i don't have as much chance as i used to, nor does my wife but i'm pretty sure that the gorgeous yard we have didn't cost $704,198. on a property of -- on our property. so you would have thought that perhaps people were going to help the president that are in the president's administration,

they would go, hey, heck, i can make do on $200,000 for my -- on my yard work this year, you can get another half million back right there. think of all the white house tours that would fund, even though it doesn't look like the cutting of the tours actually saved anything. and then we have some very salient points made by investors.com titled six ways obama's budget is worse than everyone thinks. osted 4/10/2013. fiscal policy, shorn of its accounting gimmicks, the president's budget isn't a balanced plan to get the debt crisis under control. it's a monument to fiscal irresponsibility. with much fanfare and a lot of media hype, president obea -- obama unveiled his latest budget

plan two months late. an i.b.d. review of obama's budget finds that among other things it, first boosts spending and deficits other the next two years, obama's own budget numbers show he wants to hike spending over the next two years by $247 billion compared with the baseline which even after his proposed new tax hikes would mean $157 billion in additional red ink. and it's important to understand, and i insert this parenthetically here, when we talk about a baseline, yet the -- yes the bill i've been pushing for eight years a zero baseline budget where no federal department has automatic increases, did pass the house a year ago, i'm grateful to bob woodall and paul ryan and the speaker keeping his word and bringing it to the floor, we passed it in the house but the senate under senator reid said

no, we want every department in the federal bureaucracy having an automatic increase in their budget every year. we want their budgets going up every year. now, social security, they may not get an automatic increase, medkear, they may be cut $700 billion as they were under obamacare but when it comes to every federal bureaucracy, senator reid made clear they were not going to pass a zero beasline budget. they were not going to do away with automatic increases. they were going to push forward and make sure the government bloat, the government obesity as a bureaucracy would continue and there would be automatic increases in every single federal budget. so when this article points out that the president adds to the baseline, it means the president is already adding to what has

been an automatic increase in their budgets for every department already. i hope that eventually, it may take another election to get people that are thinking correctly in the senate who will finally stand up and say, whether democrat or republican, you know what, there isn't an individual, there's not a family, there's not a charity, there's not a business anywhere in america that has an automatic increase every year in their budget so we're stopping it for the government. if an agency or department wants an increase, they're going to have to come in and justify it. now some of us wouldn't mind starting every year with a zero sum and you have to justify anything that you get at all. but all the zero baseline does is say, we are willing to start

where we were last year and if you need an increase, we'll increase, and that way, when those of us conservatives that advocate for a decrease in the increase actually are still allowing for an increase, we aren't vilified for making draconian cuts because the increases are still there. if we can get to a zero baseline, then you will actually be able to have honest and accurate criticism because at that point, a cut would actually be a cut. it would not be a decrease in the automatic increase. but president obama, not content with the overspending and the waste, fraud, and abus that's going on, is adding even above the automatic increases with his budget. this article from investors.com says vastly exaggerates spending

cuts. the press is widely reported that obama's budget would cut spending $1.2 trillion over the next decade but obama's own budget show he is cut spending a mere $186 billion, the relevant tables can be found, and it -- but w.whitehouse.gov obama inflights his claims savings by first canceling the automatic sequester spending cuts he previously signed into law then cre claim -- reclaiming them as new savings. i didn't realize -- but by adding in cuts and interest payments on the debt. article says it relies almost entirely on tax hikes, because

ma's budget shows his plan would increase revenues $1.14 trillion over the next decade, that means his budget proposes $6 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts. it cuts the deficit less than claimed. our budget -- and this is a quote from the president, my budget will reduce deficits by nearly another $2 trillion. end quote. obama said wednesday. this budget shows total deficit reduction over the next decade would be $1.4 trillion plus deficits start rising again after 2018. it should be noted that c.b.o. does not have a grasp on reality. i met with director elmendorf, talked to him more than once, i appreciate the job they're trying to do, but when they estimate the cost of obamacare at $800 billion and then after it passes say, whoops, maybe

$1.1 trillion and then after it is almost coming into effect, you know, it could be $1.6 trillion or $1. trillion, and then others more accurately say, you know what, it may be $2. trillion, that means if they original hi estimate $00 billion and it ends up being $2. trillion, then they've got a margin of error rate of plus or minus not 1% or 2% or 3% or 4%, ut more like 300% to 400%. why are we even considering c.b.o. projections when they're projecting costs with a margin of error of 300% to 400%. i think you'd have better luck bringing somebody right out of college in here and said, phi us your guess, surely your margin

of error would be closer than 3,, -- 300% to 400%. investors.com points out that obama's budget, quote, creates a new entitlement without reliable means to pay for it osm because ma claim he is can finance a new $76 billion, quote, preschool for all, unquote, by raising tobacco tacks again. but after initial spike, tobacco tax revenues will start trending downward yore after year as more people quit smoking while the cost of this new program will keep climbing. the last time obama hiked tobacco taxes to pay for an expansion of medicaid, revenues came in $2.2 billion less than expected. so apparently if the president wants more revenue from smoking, he's going to need to start doing a campaign to encourage people to smoke more so that he

can get more taxes in and bring down the massive deficit that he is wanting to create. and this report points out from investors.com, the president boosts taxes on the middle class , obama proposes to change the goth's consumer price index in a way that will lower the official inflation rate, he's selling it as a way ocut social security annual cost of living adjustments which are based on the c.b.i. but -- c.p.i. but because his change c.p.i. would also apply to tax bracket adjustments, it will end up hiking taxes on the middle class $124 billion. the american people deserve better and i hope and pray the senate will wake up, come to their senses and stop trying to ram legislation through that america does not deserve.

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman rom ohio, ms. kaptur for 0 minutes. ms. kaptur: i -- for 30 minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise tonight to speak against any proposed reduction in earned social security benefits through the so-called chain c.p.i. calculation. no issue better focuses the interests of the senior citizens of our country versus the top 1% greater than the debate over social security. earlier this year, over my objections, this congress cut senior meals by $823,000 in ohio or roughly 145,000 meals.

and now, some here in washington are approaching the jugular for our seniors, social security benefit cuts. the majority of seniors across our land depend on every single dollar they get from social security to put food on the table, to pay for utilities, to pay for housing. so many struggle with that every day. by slashing benefits and social security, while continuing to give tax havens to the richest people in this country, proves that the priorities in washington lie with the 1%, not those americans who struggle every day. the white house has chosen to include the so-called chained c.p.i. method for calculating social security cost of living ad justments in its fiscal proposed 2014 budget, the one we will be considering. but i agree with senator to