the clock is ticking. >> you'll find all of the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, rabbi michael siegel, chicago, illinois. the chaplain: almighty god, instill within the members of the house of representatives a deep understanding of the potential that this day holds. as they work together for the common good of all people in

this great land. open their hearts to respond meaningfully to the voices those of who hunger for justice hunger for equality and hunger for opportunity. give them the strength and the wisdom to ensure the security of this great nation and her friends around the world. on this day that george washington was inaugurated as the first president of the united states in 1789, we ask you, god.

throughout his 40-year career, rabbi siegel has been a dedicated leader in the jewish community serving both locally and nationally. under rabbi siegel's leadership the synagogue has grown and truly fulfilled its commitment to -- and am grateful for my

pronunsation keys and grateful to my constituents they can be part of such an apiring sin going. putting us in prayer today as guest chaplain. the house of representatives. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker i rise today to kick off may as the national mental health awareness month. i stand here to bring attention to the dire need to improve the awareness and dialogue surrounding mental health. for too long we as nation have neglected mental health, it's one of our most critical health problems today. mental illness occur morse frequently effects more

people requires more prolonged treatment and causes more suffering to individuals and families than most people could ever realize. i have personally witnessed and experienced the physical and emotional burden mental illness has on the individual and the family. a close family member of mine took their life at a very young age. despite having major hospitals and universities in the area, there are simply not enough mental health resources to help. especially in the pediatric realm. people in the central new york area often have to travel hours to receive in-patient care, disrupting lives, jobs and families. once released, the follow-up care is lacking and oftentimes the patients immediately regress. unfortunately a lack of resources in the case of central new york is not an uncommon issue. as i acknowledge, may is mental health awareness month. this friday, may 1 i will launch a mental health task

force based in new york's 24th district, a task force to be comprised of hospitals employees, individuals from all over the central new york area. the mission of this task force -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support today of the tens of thousands of students who have been left in the lurch after their for-profit school abruptly closed this week. the closure came as a surprise. it was the middle of their semester. many of these students are now buried in student loan debt and do not know how or if they can continue their education. i've urged the department of education to make it very clear to these students, they have the option to have their loans forgiven. however, the department of education has been encouraging

students to transfer to other troubled for-profit schools rather than having their loans discharged. many of the for-profit schools on the department's list of so-called viable transfer opportunities are currently under state or federal investigation. this is shocking and it's unacceptable. i call on the department to remove immediately any school currently under investigation or on heightened cash management from its list of recommended options. our students deserve better. let's give them the guidance that they can trust. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time -- the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker this past month, april 27, marked the one-year anniversary of the devastation that occurred when a tornado struck mayflower and other communities in arkansas. destroying more than 400 homes

and costing 16 people their lives. the theme of this year's anniversary is, remember our loss, celebrate our recovery. and i've had the opportunity to visit with folks in these communities to hear their stories of courage and resilience. while i mourn those that are lost, i'm so thankful for the health and safety of martin and kristen pattin and the miraculous survival of their family whose home literally disintegrated around them. i'm thankful for the leadership of a mayor, james firestone, and mayflower mayor, randy holland, who with county and local leaders are charting a course for the to youture. in the face of this tragedy -- future. mr. hill: in the face of this tragedy, they furnish us with a model of hope. i applaud the recovery efforts and dedication of these great arkansas communities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker each summer carnegie hall's wild music institute brings together some of the brightest young musicians from around the country to form the national youth orchestra u.s.a. the members of the orchestra spend the first two weeks in residency at purchase college taking master classes from the best. and they have the chance to perform at the world famous carnegie hall, where their performance is heard live around the world. then they go on tour. this summer the orchestra will make a historic visit to china. it's an incredible experience and i'm extremely proud that among the 114 amazing young people two are from the district i'm privileged to represent. ms. jasmine lavareja and a horn player from -- and lauren

michael. congratulations to them both and please let your parents know that they were right, all that practice, practice, practice paid off. it was worth it. you're performing at carnegie hall and in china. congratulations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker i come before you today to thank my colleagues on the house armed services committee, in particular chairman thornberry and ranking member smith, for all the hard work they put into crafting our nation's national defense. mrs. wagner: specifically i want to thank them for responding to critical navy short falls by including the authorization for funding of 12 fa-18 superhornets in the national defense authorization act.

the superhornet is truly the workhorse of the naval combat operations against the islamic state and is playing an important role in protecting our war fighter abroad. additionally, 12 additional superhornets will help keep a critical production line open that will allow for additional strike fighter jets and electronic warfare attack in the future. however, our work isn't finished. i look forward to supporting the ndaa when it comes to the house floor and fighting for superhornets to be included during the appropriations process. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition in -- recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i wish i could say that the budget resolution being moved through congress right now will help america's middle class. i wish i could say that this budget will help provide

opportunities for struggling americans and security for our seniors. mr. lowenthal: i wish i could say that this budget will help raise stagnant wages, help our kids attend college and help our businesses create jobs. i wish i could say all of that but i can't. what i can say is that the budget being pushed through the house today would make hardworking americans work even harder and take home even less, while benefiting special interests and the ultrawealthy. i ask my republican colleagues to partner with us in a bipartisan fashion to create a budget that will benefit all americans. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i'm pleased that we're working through a

bipartisan military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill that contains a lot of good measures, that keeps the v.a. under the magnifying glass and helps guarantee top-notch care for our nation's heroes, our veterans. mr. hudson: continuing to fix the issues of the v.a. need to remain our top priority. but the solution is not to throw more money at it. we spend more now on the v.a. than at any point in our history but too much money is wasted in the bureaucracy here in washington, d.c. and -- washington and doesn't get down to the care givers and the veterans who need the care. my constituents and veterans across the nation are waiting months for routine exams, while others who need special care are stuck in backlogs. mr. speaker, it simply isn't fair and it's not tolerable. our veterans deserve the best and we can deliver that by breaking up this bureaucracy of the v.a. we should give our veterans the option to get health care at the v.a. if they choose or to go to a private health care provider in their local community and have the v.a. pay for it. until we move to that system, mr. speaker, the v.a. at the top is going to continue to

soak up the money and the veterans at the bottom are going to continue to not get the care that they deserve. i ask my colleagues to continue to work with me so that we provide the best health care in the world to our veterans, that we keep the promises we've made. thank you, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan sook recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one meant. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the republican budget we are going to consider later today is a step in the wrong direction for students. mrs. dingell: at a time when student loan debt is at an all-time high, we need to be doing more to help students not less. unfortunately, the republican budget will make students work harder for less. it will hurt low-income students by cutting $89 billion for pell grants. it will dramatically cut back the loan repayment programs that help all student loan borrowers pay affordable rates. and for americans in job

training programs, more than two million may be turned away from the critical training programs they need to change careers or secure advancement at work. students of all types deserve access to quality, affordable education. but this republican budget cuts critical programs that help our students get ahead. mr. speaker, our young people are 25% of our population and 100% of our future. we can and must do better. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, today i'm introducing the enhancing veterans treatment act, legislation that elame nates bureaucratic hurdles so veterans using v.a. can continue to receive the lifesaving meant cal health education they access on duty.

currently the v.a. requires the veteran to switch that medication when the drug is not included in the drug's formulary regardless if the drug is working. the instead the v.a. will put the veteran on different medication and requires them to fail first before they switch back or the vet must go through an appeals process. instead, this bill simply says if it works, keep it. this bill allows seamless continuity of medications and leaves any decision of change up to the doctor. it is not enough to just have the d.o.d. share a medication list because when it comes to psycho tropic medication, the doctor needs the full spectrum of choices. with 22 veterans dying each day by suicide. these veterans don't have time to wait to get their medication for their depression and anxiety. i ask all members to please join me in co-sponsoring the enhancing veterans access treatment act so we can solve this problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, this week we received good news. on tuesday, 200 girls and 93 women were rescued from boca had a ram -- boko haram camp in a forest. on yesterday, another group 160 women and children were rescued in the same forest. these reports bring me great hope. my heart goes out to these women, girls and their families who have experienced their worst nightmare. i'm hopeful that the girls who were kidnapped over a year ago are a part of these ongoing rescue missions by the nigerian army. mr. speaker, yesterday i asked my fellow congresswomen to wear red in honor of the missing

girls. and together in the well of the house of representatives. together we called attention to the atrocities committed by boko haram. call for the return of all of the kidnapped girls, and call for nigerian leaders to be held accountable by the world. it takes the political will of the nigerian government and the conviction to do what's right to eradicate boko haram and end the tranlic reign of terror. we hope to wear red every wednesday. i will not stop speaking, stop tweeting, and stop fighting on behalf of these girls, their families until we are safely -- the girls are safely returned. tweet #bring back our girls. and tweet #joinrepwilson. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker every year students from around the world

come to the united states to access our high quality education and universities and colleges. many of these students obtain doctoral degrees in science, technology engineering, and math. mr. paulsen: and have job offers from numerous employers that need their expertise and skills. however too often our immigration rules send these graduates, some of the best and brightest minds, who will be high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs, back to their home countries to become our competitors rather than helping grow and create jobs right here. today i'm introducing bipartisan legislation, the staple act, with my colleague, congressman mike quigley to help quick this problem and keep america on the forefront of innovation. the staple act will exempt recent stem graduates with a ph.d. with pending job offers from h-1. -about quotas. our immigration system is broken and we must take action to ensure the system is fair and keeps america competitive and passing the staple act is a good step in the right direction. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to talk about the office of technology assessment, the ota. mr. mcnerney: it was a partisan resource for congress as it dealt with scientific and technical policy issues. the o.t. was overseen by a technical advisory board composed of six senators and six representatives evenly split between the two parties. the o.t.a. was able to provide easy to understand explanations of complex scientific issues. for example, in 1988, the o.t.a. provided a study called, healthy children investing in the future. showing that infants with low birth weights were more susceptible to a variety of physical and mental disabilities. this study helped change medicaid eligibility rules by expanding access to prenatal care to millions of women, saving lives and taxpayer money.

this and other reports provided the information needed to make reasonable policy based on scientific results. this congress needs scientific guidance, and i urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the re-establishment of the office of technological assessment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, if we are serious about making the tax code simpler and fairer, then we have to get rid of dead weight handouts. the p.t.c. elimination act which i have authored with congressman pompeo is a step in that direction. mr. marchant: the bill scales back and repeals the production -- wind production tax credit. p.t.c. was created over 20 years ago to help new forms of energy get on their feet. today it's a largely bloated

subsidy for fully grown, multimillion dollar wind industry. the mature wind industry shouldn't be spoon-fed by taxpayers any longer. the p.t.c. needs to end. by taking this no longer needed tax credit off the books the p.t.c. elimination act brings fairness to our tax code and enhances competition. that's the kind of tax simplification we need to reinvigorate the american economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, yesterday japan's prime minister addressed congress. each u.s. president has their japan opening initiative. all fail. as will president obama. soothing words are what prime

minister abe gave congress yesterday, but here's the scorecard. for u.s. trade with japan. there hasn't been a single year of trade surplus for our country, not even balance. rather, over the last 20 years we have had $1,963,654,100 lost dollars. dollars that have gone to japan from us buying their products but their markets remain closed to ours. the transpacific partnership is not a trade deal. it should be debated as a treaty. it is a foreign policy arrangement that is part of the shift to asia. as for the trade portion of the transpacific partnership it facilitates the movements of more u.s. corporations into vietnam and other nations in the region whose labor costs are a third of that of china now and will ease the movement of those goods back into, guess what, our

country again. chasing cheap labor. we have seen it before. it's time for us to stand up for the workers and communities of the united states of america and start building back our middle class rather than keep shipping it out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, rise today to honor and give thanks to all new hampshires educators as we celebrate national teachers appreciation day. oftentimes our teachers don't get the thanks or credit that they deserve. granite state teachers devote their lives to providing our children with the tools resource, and attention necessary to be the very best they can be. it's our teachers who listen to our children. challenge them and inspire them to dream the impossible. they spend countless hours devoted to preparing our kids for the next challenge.

whether that be passing a test or navigating conflict. they don't simply prepare them for the grammar quiz on friday. they prepare them for the events that will test them throughout their lives. to all those who teach our kids that anything is possible with hard work and dedication, thank you. to all those who are encouraging our students to shoot for the stars, i say thank you. it's because of you that our nation remains the world leader of innovation, ideas and excellence. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mr. mr. chairman, i rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the national outdoor leadership school. noles was founded in wyoming by paul petsle. miss lummis: noles has taught

thousands of americans and people worldwide about the responsible use of the outdoors. an appreciation for outdoor activities recreation, hiking, that is unsurpassed. noles is headquartered in wyoming and we are proud that noles mother ship is in our dear state. noles is a wonderful organization that provides stewardship of our natural resources in a way that teaches people how to enjoy and appreciation the outdoors. congratulations, noles. the national outdoor leadership school on 50 years. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: by direction of the

committee on rules, i call up house resolution 231 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 28, house resolution 231 resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1732, to preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to waters of the united states, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute

recommended by the committee on transportation and infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule abamendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-13. modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. this amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. . all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waved. no amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divide and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for

division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage, without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution senate concurrent resolution 11, setting forth the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017

through 2025. all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. the conference report shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without intervening motion except one hour of debate. section 3, section 604-g of the district of columbia home rule act shall not apply in the case of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 43. this a-- digs approving the action -- disapproving the action of the district of columbia council. section 4, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, house joint resolution 43, disapproving the action of the district of columbia council and approving the reproductive health nondiscrimination amendment act of 2014. all points of order against consideration of the joint

resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform or their respective designees. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervenings motion except one motion to recommit if otherwise in order. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? >> thank you mr. speaker, i raise a point of order against house resolution 231 because the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. mrs. watson coleman: the resolution contains a waiver against all points of order against consideration of h.r. 1732, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which

causes the violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new jersey makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentlewoman from new jersey and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. following the debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from new jersey. mrs. watson coleman: thank you mr. speaker. when i was sworn into this congress, there was quite a fanfare about how many women now serve in this body. but even with all these women, this body is still 80% male. men are running the show and the side show that they have used to distract from us the real reasons each of us was elected and has been persistent absurd and arrogant and ignorant effort to impede upon a woman's right to make her own choices about her

health. we have wasted absolutely taxpayer dollars and valuable time here on the floor of the house again and again and again, trying to legislate away something our highest court confirmed years ago. we could have spent that time talking about the recent rash of police brutality cases that have long plagued communities of color. an issue that has now caught fire in the streets of baltimore, just a few miles north of us. we could have discussed the lack of job training programs preparing workers for careers in technology and health. the fastest growing professions in an economy doing nothing for the long-term unemployed. we could have used this time to work on protecting our seniors by expanding social security keeping even more older americans out of port poverty. we could have debated any issue that would offer better opportunities for our constituents, which is what

each of us was elected to do. instead we put members of congress one place we have no right to be and that is in a woman's uterus. women are the only ones who have the right to make the inherently private health choices that they are faced with. mr. speaker, when the legislation we're preparing to debate came before the house oversight committee i was particularly disturbed. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle gave us a slough of well-meaning arguments about why so desperately needed to violate the self-rule of the district of columbia. one of these men, a former minister explained employers who have moved by faith to judge and persecute their employees should be free to do so. he went on to say that employers should have every right to freely exercise their faith and that the district's effort to ensure employees don't lose their jobs because of in vitro fertilization or

birth controls or any reproductive health care choice was part of a continued attack on religion. one thing that is particularly wonderful about this great nation is that we offer everyone a right to have an opinion. as a mother, a grandmother and a devoted woman of god, i couldn't help wondering how men who are so very adamant about forcing mothers to have these babies could refuse to ensure they have access to care. the same folks calling for bills like this one have called for cuts to programs across the spectrum that would give these children and their mothers access to education, access to healthy meals and all kinds of tools to ensure they're not stuck in the cycle of poverty. so once they funnel women into the path that brings the child into the world my colleagues would prefer to say, god bless you, and walk away. mr. speaker, the legislation this rule would force us to

consider is absolutely wrong. it violates the will of the district's voters, it violates the privacy and the rights of women and most relevant to this point of order it violates rules of this body for interference in state and local governments. it is now my pleasure to yield three minutes, or as much time as may be consumed, to someone who recognizes just how awful this legislation is and the only member whose constituents will have to deal with the outcome. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank my good friend from new jersey for her extraordinary remarks and for her generosity in yielding. this rule has the high stink of both unfairness and discrimination. the oversight and government reform committee voted to overturn a valid local district of columbia law but denied d.c.'s local elected officials

even the courtesy of defending that law, which is aimed at keeping employers from discriminating against women and men for their private reproductive health decisions. the most personal decisions americans make off the job. of critical importance, the d.c. local law requires that all employees carry out the mission of the organization or business, whatever it is the disapproval resolution was only added to the rules committee agenda yesterday, literally at the same time that the committee began its meeting. and no member of the majority showed up at the hearing to defend the disapproval resolution until i noted the unprecedented absence. the committee then summoned the subcommittee chair who spoke without any prepared testimony.

no wonder. how can any american defend an employer who imposes his religion or personal philosophical beliefs on an employee's private reproductive matters by sanctioning the employee because the employer disagrees? for example, with an employee's use of in vitro fertilization to become pregnant, or birth control pills for family planning. the employer has no right to even know about such private matters, but if he learned of an employee's reproductive preferences, the d.c. law requires that he must not use this private matter to discriminate on the job. not surprisingly we do not expect this disapproval resolution to be considered on the house floor in the light of day until late tonight for fear that the american people will

watch congress sanction for the first time ever discrimination against women and men for their reproductive health decisions. and see republicans violate their own professed mantra for local control of local affairs by overturning the law of a local government for the first time in a quarter of a century. i thank my good friend for yielding and i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: with, that mr. speaker, i'd like to yield such time as she may consume to the vice chairwoman of the rules committee in whose jurisdiction the unfunded mandate point of

order resides the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. fox. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from georgia for yielding time. the question before the house is, should the house now consider h.res. 231. while the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of today's measures, the committee on -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery. in contravention of the law and the rules of the house. sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. while the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of today's measures, the committee on rules is not aware of any

violation of the unfunded mandates reform act. this is a dilatory tactic. these measures will protect our farmers, ranchers and business community from a massive federal overreach being perpetrated by the e.p.a., approving our f.y. 2016 budget that puts us on a path to rein in reckless spending and reform entitle am programs and protect the -- entitlement programs and protect the religious rights of d.c. employers. as a mother, a woman and an individual of prayer i'm very glad that we're here today defending life and our constitution consistent with our congressional prerogatives. mr. speaker, our colleagues across the aisle act shocked that we're debating this issue. what is truly shocking is that we need to be here today at all discussing whether to grant

employers in the district of columbia the rights guaranteed by the u.s. constitution's first amendment, but we are. and i would further like to point out to our colleagues across the aisle some of the words of the second paragraph of the declaration of independence. we hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable -- unanalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that to secure these rights, governments are instituted. mr. speaker, we are not talking about discrimination against people here. we are discussing the

protection of innocent life. it's under the authority -- as members of congress we have a hinetted responsibility to protect -- heightened responsibility to protect the rights of d.c. residents. because the constitution in article 1, section 8, gives the congress explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of government. it is under that authority that we consider h.j.res. 43, a resolution to disapprove the action of the district of columbia council in approving the reproductive health nondiscrimination act of 2014 or rnda. . of. our country holds the right to practice freely one's religion and association with others who hold the same beliefs. it's unthinkable that we could allow the leadership, if you want to call it leadership, the people in control of our capital

city, to infringe on that right for the millions of americans who live or work inside its borders. but that is what rnd tafment does. it tells churches, religious schools, and advocacy organizations that they may not make employment decisions based on their own core principles, including the respect for precious unborn life, a principle that is central to many of these groups' entire belief system. cloaked in language purporting to prohibit discrimination and promote tolerance, this law targets these organizations and trapples their rights to exercise their -- trammles their rights to exercise their views on respect for life. in truth this law discriminates against and promotes intolerance of anyone who disagrees with the world view of the majority of the d.c. city council. it is not discriminatory for a church or religious school to believe and preach that life begins at conception. it is not discriminatory to practice these deeply held beliefs. that is unless you're in the

district of columbia. this law may force religious organizations to relocate outside the district of columbia in order to protect their rights. given the clear hostility the city council has shown them and that we have heard on this floor today, that may in fact be the ultimate goal. when we take our oath of office as representatives, we promise to protect and defend the constitution. that includes protection of religious freedoms and its why i support h.j.res. 43, which disapproves rnda. in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day mr. speaker, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from new jersey is recognized. ms. watson coleman: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all debate time being expired. the question is will the house

now consider the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. watson coleman: i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15 minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240, the nays are 174. the question -- the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. could we please get order in the house.

the clerk will report the resolution. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. when last we gathered we were taking up house resolution 231 for the purposes of this resolution, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend.

could we get order, please. the gentleman will continue. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. for the purposes of -- considering consideration for this resolution all time is yielded for purposes of debate only. i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. this is house resolution 231

down here today. i've got a copyright here. it's been so long since the reading clerk read this to us. folks may have forgotten but this represents a lot of what i would argue and i'd take a little pride on what the rules committee has been working on. it makes in order the regulatory -- now, as you may know mr. speaker, the e.p.a. and others are hard at work. i would argue, trying to exert brand new jurisdiction over waters currently regulated by the state of georgia. it's the largest power grab over water i've seen in my lifetime. i've argue -- i would argue in the history of the republic. this bill aims to roll that back, but as the committee reported it, they're always other folks who have ideas. what the rules committee did is they made in order every single democratic amendment that was offered to this resolution. if we vote to support this rule

today, we will consider this bill the house will work its will and it will work its will considering every single democratic alternative that was offered. i think that's an important step. it's going to make legislation better when we move it to final passage and i'm glad this rule provides that and i hope the folks will support the underlying rule. passing this rule today will make in order s.con.res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. mr. speaker, i almost feel like i need to explain what a concurrent resolution on the budget is because if you're like more than half the members of this house, you have never seen one before. more than half the members of this house have never served when the united states of america got together and passed a budget. it's outrageous, mr. speaker. that was yesterday that it was outrageous. today is about the opportunity

to vote on the budget. mr. speaker, both republican and democrat, the house debated -- the house worked its will. we passed a product. we worked that product out with the senate. if we pass this rule today mr. speaker, it will be in order to debate the first concurrent budget in my congressional tenure. these two terms. the first balanced budget since 2001. but only if we make this rule in order. finally, mr. speaker it's s.j.res. 43, disapproving the act of the district of columbia council that this rule will make in order. now, for folks that don't follow that, we don't see it that often. in fact, since republicans first took over congress for the first time in 40 years, back in 1994, we've never seen one of these resolution before. it's the first one. but it comes from the district of columbia home rule act. as you know, mr. speaker, the

constitution delegates to congress all of the authority for governing the district of columbia. it's section 1 article 1, section 8, all of the authority for the governing of the district of columbia lies in this body. but in 1974 we passed the d.c. home rule act which allowed for coordinated governance of d.c. and in this resolution of disapproval allowing congress to come back and reject actions that the district of columbia has taken. now, again folks won't have seen this. unless you were in congress in 1991 when democrats were controlling the house and democrats were controlling the senate, unless you were here then you would not have seen one of these resolutions pass. it was last passed in 1991, folks rejecting the deliberations of the d.c. council. this bill -- this rule makes in order consideration of that -- of that resolution, h.j.res.,

joint resolution. again, today. it was exactly contemplated when for the very first time in the history of the congress congress delegated some of the power to the district of columbia to the city itself. in the language that designated that authority to begin with, it provided for this resolution of disapproval for the first time in almost 20 years this house is considering one of those today. that's what you get in this -- in this rule mr. speaker. it provides for debate on all of the democratic amendments offered. it provides for debate on those bills that are exactly the d.c. home rule act anticipated and it provides for debate on the first conferenced budget that most members in this house have ever seen. it's a shame this is the first time we've had an opportunity to do it but golly is it exciting we have an opportunity to do that together today mr. speaker. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr.

woodall, for the customary 30 minutes. and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of three unrelated pieces of legislation . a republican budget conference report an anti-clean water act bill, and a resolution to interfere with the decisions of the district of columbia city council and a bill that limits women's reproductive health rights. the budget conference report was filed only minutes before the rules committee met yesterday. only minutes before the committee formally convened. a 100-page conference report that was negotiated in secret by republicans, was brought before the rules committee before anybody had a chance to read it. what ever happened to read the bill?

whatever happened to a more open and transparent congress? it would be nice all members democrats and republicans, had the opportunity to carefully review the legislation they are asked to vote on, especially when it comes to a document that provides a blueprint for funding the federal government and reforming our social safety net programs. now, if that weren't bad enough, the majority claims this budget conference report is something to be proud of. mr. speaker, this is nothing to be proud of. it is shameful. it is shameful both in terms of process and it is shameful in terms of substance. budgets should be moral documents. they provide our constituents with a clear picture of who we are, what our priorities are how we should govern where we want this country to go. they represent our values, but the values that this budget represents, i would argue, are not the values of working families in this country. they're not the values of those struggling to get out of poverty. they may be the values of

corporate special interests or very wealthy individuals in this country, but they don't represent the values of the majority of people of this country. this partisan republican budget takes us in the wrong direction. it cuts $5.5 trillion in funding to a series -- through a series of unrealistic spending cuts, math magics and gimmicks. it asks nothing of the wealthiest among us, continues us down the terribly misguided path in fact, you know, to be -- to be honest, mr. speaker this budget basically provides us a pathway to do not a lot of anything really, because we already know that unless we don't -- unless we deal with the issue of sequestration, our colleagues in the united states senate are going to block all of the appropriations bills. we know that the president will not sign any appropriation bills that lock us into

sequestration. though maybe what we should be doing is -- rather than wasting time, we ought to be fixing sequestration, but my republican friends have been very good at wasting time and wasting taxpayer dollars and that's what we're doing today. the republican budget conference report proposes to end the medicare guarantee and turn it into a voucher program. it turns medicaid and chip into a capped block grant. it eliminates 85 million in pell grants. it cuts investments in research and in infrastructure. the budget resolution builds upon the draconian $125 billion cut to snap, the nation's premiere anti-hunger program. that was contained in the house budget. and to achieve a cut of that magnitude by block granting the program and capping its allotment means states will be forced to cut benefits or kick eligible individuals and families off the program. boy, isn't that a nice value that we're promoting here,

throwing poor people off of a food benefit? and just because the conference report is vague on some details or leaves out a few key buzz words doesn't mean it protects programs for the poor. unfortunately, this republican congress has shown time and time again that balances to -- plans to balance the budget on the backs of poor americans. and it has reconciliation instructions to appeal the affordable care act, not ensuring 16 million people who have gained coverage under the a.c.a. are able to remain insured. that's right, if the republicans get their way, being a woman is once again a pre-existing condition, preventative care goes away. simply, the progress that we've made over the past few years disappears. senior citizens will see their prescriptions cost increase and it will be worse off repealing

the affordable care act because it will be higher costs and sicker people. it's a bad idea. it's a good sound bite i guess. despite claims by my friends in the majority, this budget does not balance. nowhere near balance. in fact, mr. speaker, it is filled with gimmicks and contains the very dangerous addiction congress has for deficit spending by further increasing funds for the overseas contingency operations account or o.c.o. you know, not only does this budget increase the o.c.o. war spending, but it also if a cistails -- facilitates using the slush fund for items used in the base budget. everything is on the national credit card. none of them is an emergency. it is deficit spending pure and simple. and i commend my colleagues on the republican side who are raising the little hell on the other side about this kind of budget gimmick that's going on. this is outrageous. and while we continue to pump up the deficit and pump up the o.c.o. account, we watch our roads and our bridges and our

water systems crumble for lack of funding. and we starve our education and our job training and innovation programs. so mr. speaker, knows are just a few of the outrages contained in the republican budget. we are still in the process of combing through the 100-page document that was just filed yesterday, and i'm sure there will be additional issues that we want to raise. but in addition to this awful budget today's rule also provides consideration for h.r. 1732 and h.r. 43. now, h.r. 1732, mr. speaker basically is -- it would force the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers to withdraw its proposed rule on the clean water act jurisdictional boundaries and start the rulemaking process over again from scratch. now, mr. speaker, the current rulemaking process should be allowed to move forward.

the e.p.a. and the army corps have painstakingly engaged in an extensive stakeholder outreach and public comment process. they're doing their job. the rule is grounded in sound science, and h.r. 1732 would cause further confusion and would not delay -- and would end up delaying essential clean water projects for future generations. now, not to mention, mr. speaker, that a energy and water appropriations bill being considered by this house today would prohibit the army corps from spending any money to propose a new rule. so basically my friends in one bill, they basically null and void what the bill we're going to debate today is intended to do. frankly, mr. speaker, i'm does appointed. i'm disappointed in this -- in the partisan approach that majority has taken with regard to clean water legislation and environmental protection legislation. but there's another bill in here, mr. speaker, and i just want to say a few words about

that and that's h.j.res. 43. disapproving the district of columbia's reproductive health nondiscrimination amendment act, it's called. mr. speaker, the d.c. reproductive health nondiscrimination amendment act is scheduled to take effect this saturday. the law passed unanimously by the d.c. security council unanimously. this would protect employees who work in the district of columbia from workplace discrimination based on their personal reproductive health care decisions. the bill is about basic fairness. people should be judged at work based on their performance, not on their personal private reproductive health care decisions. but house republicans cannot pass up an opportunity to meddle in personal reproductive decisions or d.c.'s right to govern itself. the resolution before us, h.j.res. 43, would prevent the law going -- from going into effect. in doing so it would allow an

employer to fire a woman because she used in vitro fertilization or demote an employee because she used birth control pills or her husband used condoms or pay an employee less because his daughter became pregnant out of wedlock. in other words, we're a few months into 2015, a year and a half away from the presidential election, and the republicans are already restarting their war on women. . sometimes it feels like this congress is stuck in the mindset of 1815 rather than 2015. and make no mistake, let my colleagues make no mistake about this, h.j. 43 is about legitimatizing discrimination. enough already. and, mr. speaker earlier the gentlelady from north carolina, my colleague on the rules committee, came on the floor and said, we in congress need to protect the citizens of d.c. protect them from what?

from their own democratic process? give me a break. the citizens of d.c., let me tell my republican colleague, don't want your protection or your interference. they want this congress to respect them and their decisions. and so mr. speaker this is another, you know, lousy piece of legislation that really shouldn't be here on the house floor. at this point, mr. speaker i would like to yield to the gentlelady from the district of columbia ms. holmes norton, for the purpose of unanimous consent request. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on america's priorities instead of resuming the attack on women's health. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from california, mrs. torres, for the purpose of unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.

mrs. torres: thank you. i ask for unanimous consent to insert my statement for the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from michigan for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mrs. dingell: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record, that the house should focus on the real priorities of working men and women, instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on real priorities like eliminating poverty instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from florida, mrs. wilson, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that

the house should focus on the real priorities of america like jobs jobs, jobs, instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from california ms. bass, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. bass: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of the country instead of another attack on women's health care in washington, d.c. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from florida, ms. frankel, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. frankel: thank you mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from california for a unanimous consent request. ms. roybal-allard: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on jobs and the economy, the real priorities of the

american people, instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert nye statement into the record -- my statement into the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from alabama for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. sewell sewell mr. speaker, i ask -- ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of the american people instead of another attack on women's health. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from new york for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mr. vela: mr. speaker i ask -- ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of the american people, job creation, getting a stronger economy rather than attacking women on

health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from new mexico for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will first make an announcement. the chair would advise members that although a unanimous consent request to insert remarks in debate may compromise a simple decorative statement of the member's attitude toward the pending measure. embellishments beyond that standard constitute debate and can become an imposition on the time of the member who has yielded for that purpose. the chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be necessary to accommodate members, but the chair also must ask members to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lujan grisham: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from new jersey, ms. coleman watson, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mrs. watson coleman: mr. speakerings i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from new york for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to incertificate my statement into the record. the house should be focusing on the real priorities facing americans, the economy, they should not be rolling back women's access to health care. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i

yield to -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. but the time of the gentleman will be charged. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from kentucky for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record, that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from new york for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record, that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from california for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from michigan for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert

my statement into the record that the house should focus on real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from florida for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. castor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of america instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member on the rules committee for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. slaughter: thank you mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, for the purpose of unanimous consent request. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the

record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from california for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should focus on the real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished jo from california, our democratic leader, ms. pelosi for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. pelosi: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to incertificate my statement in the record that the house should focus on real priorities of americans instead of another attack on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this point i will reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield four minutes

to one of our young leaders in this chamber, ms. wal in her -- mrs. wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. mrs. wagner: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for all the work that he has done to protect life and religious freedom. mr. speaker, i rise today to express my strong disapproval of religious discrimination in the district of columbia's local government. mr. speaker, one of the founding principles of our great country is a freedom to worship without government interference. our forefathers fought and died for that liberty. and i stand before you today to make sure they did not die in vain. the law passed by the d.c. city council attacks the core religious beliefs of faith-based organizations schools and pro-life advocates. under this law these groups could be forced to pay for health services that are in direct conflict with their

fundamental religious beliefs. under this law, a d.c.-based nonprofit whose sole mission is to end abortion could be forced to pay for abortion services. this is not only unacceptable, but stands in direct opposition to the constitution and federal law. this is why i'm a proud -- i'm proud to cons co-sponsor congresswoman black's resolution that formally expresses congress' disapproval of the d.c. pro-abortion law. i stand here to defend the rights of religious institutions and pro-life companies to honor their faith and respect the sanctity of life. mr. speaker, i believe that life is our greatest gift. i admire the work that many of these faith-based and pro-life organizations do to change the hearts and the minds in this abortion debate. and i will not stand idly by to

watch their religious freedoms trampled. i urge my colleagues to do the same and vote in favor of this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. mcgovern: i strongly disagree with what the gentlelady just said. we'll have more time to talk about that. i want to go to kind of a different subject right now and for those who are watching these proceedings, it may be a little confusing because we're jumping around to different subjects, but my republican friends have this kind of new ploy to limit and stifle debate and that is pack as many bills into one rule at a time so that you can limit the amount of participation and debate, which again runs contrary to what the people's house is supposed to be about. mr. speaker, i want to ask at the end of all this that we defeat the previous question and then i will offer an amendment to the rule that would grant the house an opportunity to consider a budget that rejects the mindless sequester cuts in critical services and instead

adopt a plan to put the budget on a fiscally responsible path by making responsible targeted spending cuts and by closing special interest tax breaks that benefit only the very wealthiest. it would make necessary investments to boost the economy and create jobs, protect national security and preserve the medicare guarantee. and to discuss this proposal i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the committee on the budget, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. yarbleyarm -- mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from massachusetts for yielding. i rise in opposition to had the rule primarily because of -- to the rule primarily because of the gimmickry and the coldheartedness of the conference budget. it's not just myself who has understood the tricks and gim s that were use -- gimmicks that were used to formulate this so-called balanced budget which doesn't, of course balance, but it's kind of like, if i had

gone out and said, i'm going to spend $2,000 on a cheap race horse, this is the weekend of the kentucky derby, i'm going to go out and buy a cheap race horse, i'm going to enter it into the kentucky derby, the horse is going to win the kentucky derby, and then i take that prize money from the kentucky derby, i might even be so bold as to predict it's going to win the triple crown, i take all that money and put it in my budget as if i had actually done it. that's kind. way this budget was constructed. but again. it's not just me. virtually everyone who has looked at this detached impartial observers say this is not legitimate budgeting. the committee for responsible budgeting noticed that the house budget uses, quote several budget gimmicks that circumvent budget discipline. the details are unrealistic and unspecifiesed. it also observed about the senate budget, disappointingly many of the savings are unrealistic. taxpayers for common sense said this isn't budgeting, it's gimmickry. and even the conservative

fiscal times noted there is a lively held believe among many federal budget watchers that republicans had to resort to budgetary smoke and mirrors to create a pathway to a balanced budget. so while my friend from georgia and other members of the rules committee last night and other members of the budget committee are praising the fact that they were able to construct a budget that balances the first time since 2001, it doesn't balance. for instance, what it it eliminates, repeals or calls for the repeal of the affordable care act and then takes all of the savings and revenues from the affordable care act and counts that as a way to add $2 trillion to the positive side of their budget over 10 years. that's not accurate budgeting, that's gimmickry. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my colleague. that's not good budgeting, that's fantasy world and that's really what this budget is about. unfortunately, though, there is a very cruel side to this budget.

as my friend from massachusetts had said, this does real damage to the american people. it does damage to hardworking families who are trying to get ahead. it actually ends up being a tax increase on hardworking american families. it repeals the affordable care act, and i just want to talk a little bit about what the affordable care act has done in my state because if this were to actually happen, here's the impact on my citizens would be. in kentucky, according to the dwight professional services firm that did an audit of kentucky's experience and a projection over the next six years, the affordable care act will contribute $30 billion of additional economic activity in the state, will create 44,000 jobs and will have a positive impact on the kentucky state budget of $850 million. that's in one state. so if you repeal the affordable care act, not only do you do great damage to the health of americans, taking insurance away from 16.5 million. in my state 650,000 who has

gained insurance in the last year and a half but you're doing damage to our education, to our infrastructure, to our investment in research, to our seniors. seniors under this bill will suffer a great financial hardship as well as a loss of benefits. there is real damage, as i said, to be done with this budget. but the most, i think disturbing part of the entire debate is the fact that this is not a budget that balances. yes, the numbers at the end on the plus and negative side add up, they actually match after 10 years but all of the bases you're forgetting there is about as reliable. again, if i bought that racehorse and said i'm going to win the kentucky derby and counted those earnings before that race was ever run. so i oppose this -- the rule on the basis of this conference report on the budget. i think it does great damage to the united states. i urge my colleagues to vote against the rule, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield three minutes to a gentleman, a member of the ways and means committee, a member from indiana, the gentleman, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: well, i thank my colleague for his leadership today, as all days. i really appreciate that. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule and more broadly of h.j.res. 43. i want to thank the gentlelady from tennessee for her leadership and her conviction on this issue. we all want to protect the free speech and beliefs of all americans, but too often the line is drawn to discriminate against those with pro-life beliefs and this is done under the girse of anti-discrimination which is what happened in the district of columbia. under the recently passed ordinance, religious institutions and other pro-life employers in our nation's capital could be forced to make decisions that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. despite the supreme court

ruling in hobby lobby, for instance, under this ordinance, religious employers could be compelled to cover elective abortions in their health care coverage or face discrimination charges. now, it would also prevent faith-based employers from taking action against employees who participate in activities that run counter to the mission of that organization. for instance, a pro-life crisis pregnancy center couldn't terminate an employee who undermines their cause by volunteering at an abortion clinic. now, as a strong pro-life individual myself, it boggles my mind that government could force like-minded individuals to violate their conscious in such ways and frankly, in americans should be comfortable with such discrimination. we must take swift action to stop this ordinance, and i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this nation is founded on two simple and powerful principles. liberty and equality. in the 18th century, our founding fathers saw liberty as the dictates from the tyrannical government and fought to the death to protect. it they could not foresee is the tirney of employers who seek to impose their beliefs on their employees and to control their personal decisions. i'm saddened that today my republican colleagues are bringing up another bill to enable employers to control the private personal decisions of their employees. today this body may with a single vote strip over 650,000 american citizens of their essential liberty to make their own choices about their health care and their own families. make no mistake, the district of columbia's new law, the

reproductive health norn discrimination health is about liberty. we are not talking about an employer who objects to paying for insurance that covers contraception. d.c. passed this law to protect the citizens from an employer who tells a woman that she will be fired for using contraception or for using in vitro fertilization to start a family or for engaging in other conduct that violates the employer's religious beliefs. the d.c. law we are asked to overturn says your employer should not be able to impose his religious beliefs on you. you should not be fired because your religious beliefs differ from those of your employer. the d.c. law protects religious liberty. the disapproval resolution imposes religious coercion. yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who claim to support freedom and liberty stand here today and say to the american people, you do not have the right to make a decision to start a family. your employer has the right to

make that decision for you. i want them to explain that to tony blair constituents and why they -- that to their constituents and the american people will not stand for it and we must not stand for it today. i urge my colleagues to vote no othis rule and no on the disapproval resolution. we must send a strong message to the american people that freedom and liberty and religious liberty still exists in this country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield three minutes to a member of the class of 2010, a public servant from the state of kansas, mr. huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate my colleague from georgia yielding me time to discuss this rule and the underlying issue and i do want to report that it was 229 years ago that virginia general assembly ratified the virginia statute for religious freedom. this was authored by thomas jefferson, and the statute serves as the model for the

free exercise clause in our first amendment. and this is what it said. no man shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion. mr. chairman, religious freedom is a fundamental human right protected by our first amendment. it is essential to our free and flourishing society. our nation was founded in part by individuals seeking refuge from religious persecution from religious discrimination, and for these pioneers and for all to come after america was meant to be a permanent fortress of liberty and freedom for all who live within its walls. at its essence, the concept of religious freedom is about much more than religion. it's much more than just showing up to worship service one day or one night a week. it is about our fundamental human right to hold our own

beliefs and to live out in our lives according to these faiths. religious freedom quite simply is about freedom itself. this is why the very first part of the very first amendment to our constitution is about religious freedom. it is our first and most cherished liberty. however, our ability to be free, to live out the convictions our faith not only in the public square but also in the privacy of our own homes, in our churches, in our businesses is in jeopardy right here in our nation's capital. the misleading name is nothing more than legalized discrimination. if allowed to go in effect the government would force pro-life organizations, pro-life ministries, pro-life businesses, pro-life churches, pro-life individuals in the district to violate the very heart of their lives and their work and be coerced coerced into paying for abortion on demand and be forced to hire anti-life individuals who actually promote abortion. as a catholic and as an

american i am offended by such coercion. now is the time for congress to stand up against this direct assault on our freedom of religion also our freedom of association and our freedom of speech. i encourage my colleagues to join me and honor our constitutional oath of office by adopting this rule and passing h.j.res. 43. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, a be member on the committee on oversight and government reform, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank my good friend from massachusetts for yielding. mr. speaker, i want to thank the many democrats who have rallied to the defense of reproductive health decisions of men and women in the district of columbia especially since this is a resolution to overturn a district of columbia law that everyone in this chamber will be able to vote on except me. i wish to rebut a set of

untruths you heard from the other side that, for example that this -- that the d.c. law is an assault on religion. on the contrary, it protects an employer's religious beliefs. he can hold those religious beliefs. if that's part of what he does, his organization does, the employee must advocate those beliefs. whatever the organization or business that that employer is in, he must advocate their views not his own. what the employer cannot do is to go into the employee's bedroom to find out what kind of reproductive choices he makes on his own as a private matter. abortion has been raised in this bill. in fact, just the opposite. the law, the d.c. law makes it clear that their insurance is not involved, paying for abortion is not involved.

republicans have done almost the inconceivable. they have resumed with this disapproval resolution the war on women by adding men. the d.c. bill protects all employees from job discrimination by the employer for their reproductive health choices. for example, if the employer discriminates against a male employee by -- who has contributed firm for the in vitro fertilization to help his wife become pregnant, then that male employer -- employee is also protected. there has been an attempt to tie the d.c. law to abortion, but if an employee refuses to carry out indeed to advocate the mission of the organization

that opposes abortion, then that employee can be fired. in fact, you can ask that employee before that employee is hired, will you advocate vigorously against abortion the way this organization does, that employee must say yes or that employee may not insist on any right to be hired. mr. chairman, it is interesting to note that manager of this bill never defended the bill on the merits. instead, he defended the tyranny of federal power over local matters. the home rule act in its terms mr. speaker, does not intend and says so that this body will continue -- could i have another -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the

gentlelady an additional one minute. ms. norton: does not envision overturning local law, and it says so in its terms because there are only a few matters that it mentions that cannot be -- that cannot be enacted and the matter on the floor is not one of them. republicans are or have been champions of federalism and local control, but yet they're trying to impose their own preferences on a local jurisdiction whose member cannot even vote for or against. it is a double whammy. the goal here is to resume the war on women. the predicate for getting to the nation's women is the d.c. home rule act. it goes after self-government and women at the same time. the coming attraction in your district is that this bill or a version of it is pending all over the country. stop it here or it will spread throughout the united states of

america. i thank my good friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, at this time it's my great pleasure to yield five minutes to the vice chairman of the rules committee, one of our great leaders from north carolina ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. . ms. foxx: again i thank my colleague from georgia for the great leadership he shows in the rules committee and on the floor. mr. speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many comments, some of them i'm going to do my best to refute. comment by comment. others are just -- i'm just going to talk about in general. but their one charge is that congress should stay out of the business of governing d.c. article 1, section 8 of the u.s. constitution gives