for nasa, the bill includes $18.2 billion. this includes the full request for aeronautics, the shuttle program and the international space station, as well as funding above the request for nasa science and education. however, the bill frees if -- freezes funding at the current lefrl for exploration activities pending the outcome of a blue ribbon panel review of future options. the result is a funding level not consistent to continue the funding level and will result in a severe disruption to the human space exploration program. i look forward to the results of the panel and to working with the chairman and other members to ensure the bill contains sufficient funds to continue human space flight. i want to acknowledge the important language in the bill regarding the release and transfer from guantanamo detainees this bill does not prevent the closure of guantanamo, it seeks odge to ensure that the process of carrying out the executived orer that national security, the security of our communities and the security of our men and w

we start with the legislative branch appropriations bill. madam president, i'm pleased to announce to my colleagues that, as of this moment, the appropriations committee has reported out four appropriations bills. it may please you to know, madam president, that all of these bills -- legislative, homeland security, commerce, and interior -- passed the committee unanimously, and all of the bills represent a bipartisan approach. and the bill before this body deserves the support of every member of this body. it provides for the essential services to fulfill the functions of our legislative branch. it is a clean, free bill of unnecessary dividers. it is $300 million below the amount requested and within the funding allocation provided to the supplement. madam president, i strongly recommend its approval, and may request unanimous consent that my whole statement be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i have

that is through the technology innovation program. this bill in addition provides much-needed funding for the bureau of prisons to protect american citizens. according to the bureau of justice statistics, in a 15-state study over 2/3 of the released prisoners were rearrested within three years. with this in mind the bureau of prisons is provided with $6.2 billion in correction staffing, education and drug treatment as well as an investment for second-chance act offender re-entry programs. the bill also provides much-needed $298 million for the cops hiring program that when combined with the $1 billion provided for in the program in the recovery act will put 7,000 new police officers on the streets of american communities, improving the safety for our constituents. and the ongoing drug violence on our southwest border is also addressed in this bill by providing funds for the d.e.a. to combat the flow of illegal drugs across the border for the a.t.f. to reduce violent crimes and enforce firearms and explosive laws and for the department-wide sout

so the philosophy of the bill itself is flawed. but the real problem with this bill, besides the fact that it's in a piece of legislation that it shouldn't be in, is the fact that it is totally unpaid for. it's $1 billion of new costs put on our children's shoulders. it's $1 billion of new spending put on the federal debt. we already know that the federal debt isn't sustainable. almost every day we are hearing international purchases of our debt, whether it be china or whether it be russia or whether it be international economists or economists of the united states saying that the american debt situation has gotten out of control. and that we are at risk as a nation of having a situation where our -- the cost of our debt will go up dramatically because we are putting so much debt on the books. under the president's budget the deficit of this government will be $1 trillion a year on average for the next 10 years. we will be running deficits of 4% to 5% of gross national product. we will run deficits that will be 80%. we will have a d

building on the bill that the president signed in may, this legislation takes a number of important steps on major weapons programs. i'm pleased this bill provides $368.8 million in advanced procurement funding for 12 additional f-22's. keeping the f-22 production line open is not only necessary to meet military requirements, but also sustains a critical sector of the defense industrial base and provides over 95,000 direct and indirect jobs at a time when our economy is struggling through recession. as a nation, we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and women in uniforms for the sacrifices they make to protect our freedom. i'm pleased that this legislation includes 3.4% pay raise, which is half a percentage point above the president's request. i commend chairman skelton to working towards the suspension bill addressed earlier today. i remained concerned that we weren't able to fund surviving spouses and allowing taxes to tricare for those who received early retirement. if this is to be the year of the military family, we must make it a priority to fund these programs, too. one o

wolf's contribution to the bill. mr., mr. -- many, many of his thoughts, yang of one that's not incorporated in the legislation one way or the other, he was a former commirm of the subcommittee and his insight is particularly beneficial. we appreciate that contribution. i support the rule, mr. speaker, and hope that our colleagues will as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back he balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: again, i would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from new york for his ongoing leadership and that of the rule committees. i join with the chairman of the subcommittee on c.g. -- c.j.s. in congratulating the rules committee for constructing this -- this rule but i also congratulate c

electric utilities support the bill, manufacturers support the bill, farmers support the bill, and so do the nation's leading environmental organizations, labor unions and faith-based groups. there are many members responsible for this remarkable coalition. on the energy and commerce committee, john dingell helped force compromises with the auto industry. rick boucher developed ideas that will provide a future for coal. mike doyle addressed the concerns of the steel industry and other trade vulnerable industries. the chairman of the ways and means committee worked with us to make sure that the interests of low-income families are fully protected. and the chairman of the agriculture committee made sure the legislation addresses the concerns of farmers and makes them part of our energy future. the need to act is clear and urgent. there is a national security imperative to act. this legislation at long last begins to break our addiction to imported foreign oil and put us on a path to true energy security. there is a scientific imperative to act. the evidence on global warming, on the con

but let me tell you, when i question the most important part of the bill, the debts is the coverage. that will take days. under any circumstances. that is where we really have to work together if we have a bill at all and yet i think senator mccain has raised important issues, we don't have the numbers, the estimates of i don't have them, i will put it that way. is very difficult to work with this if we don't have that. i know that you know, that, but to set the arbitrary deadlines when coverage on a bill like this takes a lot of time on any bill. especially when it affects the american in the economy. all like can say is get us the information and let's not push this so hard we cannot do a job there really has to be done in order to not come up with a colossal mess. i intend to work with you and see what we can do. i think it is not only important but also the most controversial part and right now we have no way of understanding with coverage is or how you handle its or what the recommendations from cbo are as well. senator mccain has said we have yet to see the language or at least

about the mechanics of the bill in a moment. but i want to make it clear, the fact is that what we have had in the past simply will not work. we've got to have that change. and in order to have that change, we've got to have a lot of public input, and this is the time to offer it. i just want to take a few questions as we move on, because a lot of people have responded to my plea that we have a fully blown, strong conversation around america so people can offer their views on this critically important topic. a question asked at progressive congress .org. why is the e.p.a. in the coal industry being gutted? well, let me say the reason why those provisions regarding e.p.a. oversight of the coal industry are not strong enough is simply because we haven't heard from you enough. we need input. we need you to talk about how you feel on this. we need oversight on everything, but we need your input on what we should be doing to have oversight on coal and need your input on how this bill needs to be changed to make sure that the coal indu

these are sound reasons to approve the bill. for those who still harbor doubts, let me make a more practical argument to vote for passage. in march of 2007, the supreme court held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. under that ruling, and the terms of the existing clean air act, the environmental protection agency is now effectively required to regulate co2 emissions. federal regulation for greenhouse gases is now inevitable. it is not a question of whether we're going to have regulation. the only question is whether the regulation will be a carefully balanced, congressionally adopted, economically sustainable regulation as contained before the bill before us today. -- as contained in the bill before us today. economic considerations could not be more fully weighed. at the path this bill starts for affordable electricity, for increased coal use, and for new job creation, i would urge the members to make a reasonable decision to approve today, the clean energy security act. i yield back the balance of my time and urge passes of th

read the substitute bill. the subbil substitute bill reque reduced harm center to actually list for the american public the most risky tobacco products and the least risky. the bill that consolidates all this jurisdiction for tobacco within the food and drug administration doesn't even require the food and drug administration to rank the most risky products. why? because those are the ones we grandfathered. we've said they can't touch them. compassion would tell you that if you want people to switch from smoking and give it up you've got to give them a tool to get there but what we've said is the future will consist of no new tools. only those manufacturers that were on the market before february 2007. some magical date in history that we'll all look back on and probably find that to blame as to why this program doesn't work. mr. president, members in a little over an hour will have an opportunity to come to the floor, have an opportunity to vote on the substitute. let me just say to them, if you want a real pu

the bill has been introduced for some time. i talked to the chairman of the committee about it and there's no reason not to move on it today. the chair: the gentleman yield back? mr. burton: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, thank you. what we see -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the motion? mr. berman: jim strongly opposed to the motion. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: what we see in the offering of this motion to recommit is a political party or the leadership of a political party that, number one, is not serious about pursuing an effective strategy to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. and two, is using the pretext of iran to strike every single provision of the bill that we have been -- we have presented and debated on. the very first provision of this bill is to strike all that follows after the enacting clause. then my friend from indiana takes a bill that i'm the sponsor of

we passed the bill. it went to the senate.the senate amended the bill and added additional funding to the imf. that and not squeak by on by -- on partisan vote. about 25% of the republicans voted on that issue voted to include the imf. why? because what ronald reagan, president george bush in 1990 and 2008 believed that the imf itself was an important aspect in the seeking of security by the united states of america. we did not put it in that bill. it is supported by two-thirds of the indicted states senate and the president of the united states who when he met with the g-20 plant to play our part in trying to bring the security of this country has paid so dearly to achieve. our share is approximately 20%. the other members of the g-20 will be putting up 80%. they believe this is enhancing the security of their country's. what it does is to lift up the poorest nations of the world. not iran -- the last time they got money from the imf was when ronald reagan was president. not hezbollah. no discussions with them. the u.s. would

the department is concerned about aspects of this bill. in particular, those provisions that impose conditions on the furnishings of military assistance that may undermine current administration authorities such as the global trained and equipped authority. and furthermore, this will allow -- this will allow the department to use the funds expeditiously and effectively without these purse strings as evolving circumstance may warrant in an effort to implement the president's strategy for the region most effectively. . i think substitute gets to what the department of defense wants to do, what the obama administration wants to achieve what, our democratic allies in pakistan and here, our strong military in the u.s., wants to achieve. a robust, free, and democratic pakistan upon which we can build that level of trust again. i hope our colleagues support our republican substitute. with that i yield back the balance of my time. reserve the balance 6 my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. for wha

having no more speakers on the bill, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: we have no further speakers. i would conclude if you yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas. mr. boozman: since the gentleman has no more speakers, again i would ask that my colleagues vote for this bill. i appreciate mr. filner's hard work on the bill. i think it's a great step in the right direction. and then also i'd like to thank ranking member buyer for offering a good amendment that i think helped the bill also. with that urging adoption i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1016, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: mr. speaker, i think

you can see the priority that that is put in this bill. i really appreciate the chairman's work on that and the 3.4% pay raise across the board for our military. the bill prioritizes our fight in afghanistan. the central front now in the war against al qaeda. and it is absolutely clear that the battle over there has a profound impact on the national security of this country. this bill gives our troops over there, the resources and equipment they need to fight the fight and defeat al qaeda and protect us against the violent extremists in that region. and the battle in pakistan, they are funding over there. on the subcommittee portion of our mark on the terrorism subcommittee, we are focused on three main issues, first of all, support for counterterrorism efforts, the fight against al qaeda and broader counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts across the globe. second, the support for innovative new technologies to give the troops the updated equipment they need to best fight those fights. and lastly, protect our homeland against unconve

the bill fails to deliver on that promise. i agree with president obama that expanding coverage should not interfere with the health insurance of americans who like what they have. i also support the president's commitment to fly pay for health reform. unfortunately, the bill fails on both those counts. the bill does not include any real payments to account for the trillion dollars in new spending. i understand that that's a finance committee challenge, but they're delaying their markup in an effort to have a bipartisan solution and to pay for it. the time -- the timeline on this isn't as tight as what we're saying. if they're taking extra time, we can take extra time, and it would be helpful if they discussed their pay fors before we discuss good expansion that we're going to have and especially when we get to talking about a government-run health care. so i think it's grossly irresponsible that we're not taking the time and that makes it difficult for us to support a bill that doesn't pay for the cost of any new coverage expa

, the meveraging with the house bill? seems -- as we was saying, is this the last best chance for bipartisanship? but my question is even if it's the last chance, does it matter? >> exactly. again, you've got house of representatives which will come up with a very liberal bill. you've got the health committee which is coming up with a very liberal bill. you've got the finance committee which will be more moderate in the legislation. it proposes. but as the chairman of the committee let slip the other day, well, this bill is going to be written in conference. conference means that after the house hass passed a bill and the senate has passed a bill, conferees will get together and decide what the bill is and it will come take it or leave it to the house and senate. my guess is that the answer to your question is that it will be a very liberal bill. and the american people are going to have the ultimate say here. and they're either going to say we don't like that, the president was right you either do it really fast before w

the bill improves land management. science programs at the forest, by increasing nonforest programs. the bill provides $1 hundred -- 100 million to protect steams. this is a key part of our effort to protect the national forest and grasslands. and final ily, we have provided an increase of $86 million for the cultral agencies supported by this bill. we recommend $170 million for the national endowment of the arts and national endowment for the humanities. the endowments are vital for preserving america's cultral heritage and supports the smithsonian institution, with an increase of $43 million above 2009. i'm proud of the way we produced this bill. mr. simpson has been an outstanding ranking member whose thoughtful contributions over the course of 20 hearings has helped us to make this a better bill. we heard from 37 government witnesses and 99 members of the public. we received written testimony from an additional 94 witnesses. i was most impressed with the minority's attendance at those hearings. this bill is the prod

that bill's in the committee somewhere trying to figure out what else can be added to a bill designed to support our troops. people talking on those topics understand that the members of the congress have a history of supporting our troops in the field, our troops in iraq, our troops in afghanistan and so suddenly, well, maybe we can also put more money in the international monetary fund. a fund that we would put that money in by increasing our debt. we all know that one of the sources of that debt right now is far -- foreign borrowing, borrowing from foreign countries. some of those countries we borrow from like china actually would then qualify to get the money back under the i.m.f. to borrow money from china to give it to china is not what we ought to be doing. if we were even going to talk about that it shouldn't be in a military supplemental. it should be in a bill focused on that specific promise that the president apparently has recently made and it deserves a debate of its own. i hope it does not come back to the floor as part of this bill. and i hope we get the job done of su

yet the bill which is the subject of this rule, mr. speaker, sustains an inexplicable $1.2 billion cut from the missile defense budget. mr. speaker, the question before us is very simple. how do we reconcile gutting missile defense when it will defend against what our own president rightfully calls a grave threat? it simply doesn't make sense. the cuts include a 35% reduction to the ground base mid course defense program, a system located in alaska and california for the purpose of protecting this country against the type of missiles north korea is gearing up to launch. this is not the time to be reducing our commitment to missile defense. we must find the current missile defense system -- we must fund the current missile defense system that protects us today and the forward-looking programs that will protect us tomorrow. mr. speaker, we must restore the $1.2 billion cut from the missile defense program today. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman fro

after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on foreign affairs now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part c 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 divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a de

the bill was filed thursday at midnight. . i've apologized to my constituents for not being up thursday at midnight to immediately begin reading the 1,000 pages. when we arrived the next day on friday, we were told, you're not going to have 48 hours to read the bill, you'll have 90 minutes to read the bill that spends $780 billion and good luck to you. i would suggest to you, when you legislate that way, silly things happen. i think a lot of our friends on the democratic side of the aisle who voted for the stimulus bill that protected those bonuses didn't know it either. in fairness. but that's why it's important. doing protect the integrity of the house and both republicans, democrats, the president of the united states, who did it? and why did they do it? just tell us, then we'll be done. but we've come to sadly a second mystery, and this one is more catastrophic when it comes to the lives of people in this country. as you know, madam speaker, the auto industry is in big trouble. and we are now faced with the bankruptcies of

we think we can do it within the context of the bill. are we going to have to add 10 cents to the cans of soda pop? people have raised that. my kids would scream. i don't drink enough soda pop that would make a difference, but it makes a lot of money. what i object? but i don't know. 10 cents a can for soda pop, that would make kids a little less punchy and raise a lot of money. all of those things are possible, none of them have been established. that is the second step. the first thing we have to do is decide in this draft bill what will be there. after the hearings, we will hear from providers, the beneficiaries, we will hear a lot of complaints and hopefully a lot of support. then we come back to work, put the bill together and try to finalize the language, but the final cost and then we will have to revise it again. it is not a simple process. >> you have talked about why providers and doctors might support this bill. why would other businesses support this bill? people home. american workers? >> because a lot of businesses do the ri

change bill itself, cap-and-trade and what else are the key aspects of this bill? >> cap-and-trade is probably the biggest piece. it's an overall cap on united states greenhouse gas emissions, the declines over the next 40 years allows companies to buy and sell permits that allow them to pollute more than they're required to and other companies that are cleaning up more get to sell to the dirtier companies. the other major provision of this bill is a renewable electricity standard that would push the united states to try and get as much clean energy from solar and 20 years -- and wind over the next 15 to 20 years. there's some wiggle room there that allows some states to do more and other states to do less. those are probably the two biggest provisions of this bill. and then there's been a whole bunch of other added mandates over the last couple of weeks and months including some green building incentives and some promotion to try and get sort of greener jobs. and we're hoping people who lose their jobs to transition into a greener economy would be the way the spons

the e.p.a. and c.b.o. with this bill passed and signed, the united states will finally be able to argue, persuasively and credibly, for global action on a challenge that knows no borders. we understand that if the chinese do not act or the indians don't act, the air that they belch will soon come to this continent and our children and families will be at risk. this is a global problem, but america is the leader. america must lead. america must set the example. this bill does exactly that. at the same time, action on global warming will send a powerful job-creating price signal to the private sector, spurring innovation in every part of the renewable energy economy. jobs, jobs, jobs. that is one of the reasons why the u.s. climate action partnership a business coalition, dedicated to fighting climate change has argued that, and i quote, the way we produce and use emergency -- energy must fundamentally change both nationally and globally and this coming change represents an excellent opportunity for economic growth. that i

, and what else of the key aspects of this bill? >> cap and trade is probably the biggest piece. it allows companies to buy and sell permits that allow them to pollute more than they are required to and other companies that are cleaning up market to sell to other companies. the major position -- another major provision will push the united states to try to get as much clean energy from solar and wind over the next 15 or 20 years. there is some wiggle room that allows some states to do more and other states to do less. there has been a whole bunch of other added mandates over the last couple of weeks and months, including some green building incentives and some promotion to get greener jobs and those that have lost their jobs to transition into a green economy. >> we have heard from a number of republicans against the cap and trade parts of this bill. who else is opposed to the bill? other democrats opposed to the bill or the cap and trade aspect? >> the republicans will be largely unified. you might see five or six that will jump ove

the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bills. the clerk: h.r. 1777, an act to make technical corrections to the higher education act of 1965 and for other purposes. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> yesterday evening, the highly respected radio and twation broadcasting pine near john callow way died. after more than 30 years with public television, his extraordinary dedication to honest journalism that served the people will be greatly missed. john could be credited with many great firsts in the world of televised broadcasting. he was a leader in cbs news station and hosted wttw chicago's first evening news analysis. a former award winner had said that he hoped his shows would allow the viewers to see the fabric and soul of the city. ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, in my city, the fabric and soul is often both extraordinary and tragic. for me and many people of chicago the air waves will feel empty without the chicago 11 show and weekend

then we come back to work, put the bill together, try to finalize the language, get the final cost, and then we'll have to revise it again. so this is -- it's not a simple process. >> you talked about why providers and doctors might support this bill. they'll have higher volume in their businesses. why would other businesses support this bill? people who employ american workers and are looking at a bill that might -- >> a lot of businesses do the right thing and like to. have happy and healthy employees. >> that's atavistic. >> people were complaining wal-mart had employees on medicare and medicaid, what are they doing now? they've changed because public opinion said let's do it, their employees are happier, even at a time when they have probably four applicants for every job. this is not exactly a buyer's market. and so, there are many businesses that want to do the right thing. and as i say, i believe that. >> do you think those businesses are represented by lobbyists in washington? >> indeed. indeed, i do. so i think that there are some, at some point, who are going to say, wait a mi

the case? we will see that bill before july 4? mr. hoyer: the energy independence bill and climate bill to which the gentleman refers, as you know, was marked up in committee and passed out of committee prior to the may break. since that time, there have been a lot of discussions and the speaker did say that the committees with concurrent jurisdiction ought to act by the 19, today. to try to bring this matter to conclusion. as the gentleman knows, i did not announce that bill for next week. i don't want to say it's not possible, but i have for the last three months been telling people, particularly the press who asked me the schedule, that i thought the energy bill, energy independence and climate bill would be on the floor either the last week in june or the first week we get back in july. so that was the time frame from my expectations. at this point in time, i have no reason to believe that it's going to be on the floor next week, but i want to make it clear to the members that work is being done as we speak on this bill. agricultur

and the auto industry support the bill. for consumers, it means a chance to get rid of the gas gudsing clunker and receive a voucher up to $4,500 to get a new, more fuel efficient car, the better the gas mileage, the high they are subsidy. for the environment, it means a win with every new sale. every car or truck sold under this program will be more fuel efficient or cleaner than the car or truck it replaces. i appreciate the work of representative sutton and my other colleagues on the committee for this legislation. i want to abbling knowledge their efforts on behalf of the american auto industry and american auto workers. this legislation was an amendment added to the aces energy bill passed by our committee by a strong bipartisan 50 to 4 vote. i ask my colleagues to vote yes, yes for the economic benefits of the bill, yes for the benefits to consumers, and yes for the improvements in environmental quality. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from

the underlying bill is an important bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i plan to close debate if the gentleman -- i yield to my friend. mr. arcuri: i have one more speaker. mr. dreier: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i yield four minutes to the the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. sutton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. sutton: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from new york for his leadership on the rules committee and for the time. i rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. but as we prepare to send the war supplemental to president obama, i would be remiss not to express the deep concerns that i have about the bill not including an exit strategy for military operations in afghanistan. and while i support the supplemental, i am also strongly supporting representative mcgovern's

it was not in the bill when it left the house. it is now. if you vote against this bill, that is one of the provisions he will be voting against. we also have additional money for military hospitals that the administration did not request. we have additional help for the auto industry. i did not think that was a federal offense to try to provide some assistance to that industry, and yes, we have a significant amount of additional funding for pandemic flou. we tried to put that money initially in the original economic recovery package. we did put it in when the bill left the house. it went to the senate, and we were laughed at. it was said, what does flu have to do with the economy, with jobs? mexico found out when they had to shut down their entire economy for two weeks because of the turmoil in that country with the flou. it is now estimated that as many as 1/3 of americans will be hit by the flu. this bill has millions of additional dollars to try to meet that challenge, and i would submit to you that the african -- the average american fam

expressed concerned about the bill. in response to their concerns, in cooperation with chairwoman herseth sandlin on the subcommittee on economic opportunity, the committee amend the bill to better define the bill's objectives and include appropriate limitations on the v.a.'s role in providing scholarship information to veterans. i appreciate the opportunity to work in a bipartisan cooperation in making these changes. the substitute states that v.a. shall make reasonable efforts to notify schools and appropriate entities such as foundations of the opportunity to be linked by the v.a. website as a provider of scholarships for veterans. the bill, as amended, also requires v.a. to require statements on its website noting that v.a. does not endorse or guarantee any assistance offered by an entity on the website, nor should the individual consider the list to be all-inclusive. finally, it sets an effective date of june 1, 2010, to allow the v.a. to consen trailt on getting the post 9/11 g.i. bill up and running, which is so i

the jurisdiction of this bill is incredibly important. we as members have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. we have endeavored to do that responsibly and i believe we have accomplished that goal. it has been an incredible privilege and pleasure to work with my colleague, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. we have crafted a bipartisan bill, worked together every step of the way, and i just wanted to acknowledge him at the very outset to thank him for all his good work and tell him what a pleasure he has been to work with. madam speaker, i also want to thank, on behalf of if i may, the house of representatives, all of the staff that work not just for the house of representatives but for every legislative branch agency because this bill is designed to support them. this bill is designed to make sure they can do the work they need to be able to do for the record for -- in order for us to serve our constituents i

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> yes, sir, do i in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. forbes of georgia moves to recommit the bill to the committee on armed services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith the following amendment. at the end of title 10, insert the following new section, section 1055, availability of funds for missile defense in certain vehicles and aircraft. a, funding, one, procurement of aircraft army. the amount otherwise provided by section 101-1 for procurement of aircraft army is hereby increased by $92 million of which, a, some is to be available for helicopters and, b, $60 million is to be available for the procurement of ch-47 helicopters. two, procurement of weapons and tract combat vehicles army, the amount otherwise provided by section 1013 for procurement of weapons and contract veeblings army is hereby increased by $797,800,000 of which, a, $138,400,000 is to be available for the procurement of striker

not passing the bill is the greatest danger. it has to be passed by july 1. we don't have the votes in the house. i just voted the -- if the gentleman would yield, i voted with him. i was in the forefront of trying to eliminate the torture. we wanted to go to the field manual. i agreed with senator mccain we wanted to go to the field manual and eliminate torture. our subcommittee has been on the forefront of that issue. in this issue, we agree you shouldn't release the photos. the point is, we have to pass the bill. we reached a compromise here, we'd like to see a bigger bill, we'd like to see a little different but the senator is tough and we did the best we could do. so i -- i would urge we vote against this legislation. this amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> senator. >> i had not intebbeded to speak on this -- intended to speak on this but i support the senate position. i don't believe that this matter should be in this bill. it's a freedom of information act. having said that, i've come to the conclusion that if this measure is involved, we don't have the vo

they wrote the bill. it is called "the honest leadership and open government act. that bill created this point of order specifically to address this type of situation. we're in a conference. one or more of the bodies sticks into a bill that is a must pass bill, language that has nothing to do with that bill and which is not paid for. in this case, it is $1 billion of spending that is not paid for. the reason they structured the rule this way was to -- was so that it would not harm the underlying bill. if this bill is successful, the bill goes back to the house. they can send it to the president and fund the troops. is it the position of the assistant leader that this cash for clunkers bill is so important that the house of representatives would not fund the troops if the language was not in the bill. is he saying that the democratic leadership is holding the funding of the troops hostage to spend $1 billion on an extraneous program which creates virtually no environmental improvement in our fleet? it is simply part of the economic effort to revive the auto industry.

even if the bill cuts u.s. carbon emissions to 83% of current levels by 2015, we will still are anticipated to slow global temperature by a mere 2/10th of a degree. then there is the real elephant in the room. india and china. both of these nations are growing rapidly in not prepared to slow down. do you really want to hamstring the u.s. industry and put it at a competitive disadvantage to asia? can we be so naive to assume our businesses, jobs, and emissions will not emigrate to china and india? taking this kind of action without enforceable carving commence from our -- carbon emissions from our competitors is a wrongful thing. we need to pay that to prosperity. we intend to go with some policies that will put people back to work and grow the economy. this is not include this proposal. with stakes so high, gambling the house away on such a high cost and low reward program is a grave mistake that republicans will not support. i yield back. >> time has expired. gentleman from texas. >> yield one minute. >> at a t

, the cap and trade bill? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have discussed this matter with the chairman of the committee, both committees. certainly they will have the opportunity. whether they will avail themselves of that opportunity i can't say at this point in time. what i mean by that is that there are clearly concerns that both committees have and have been expressed, but whether or not they are going to actually go to a markup of the biller or try to perfect it in other ways, either on the floor or working with the energy and commerce committee, i don't think has been decided by either committee at this point in time. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i now like to point out to the gentleman i believe as all of us know that our troops in iraq and afghanistan have spent the last 29 days waiting for this congress to authorize the funding that they need to execute their mission to maintain not only their own safety but the safety of us here at home. we have heard rep

the bill provides the resources and the direction that the department needs for the coming fiscal year. this bill also reflects our subcommittee's tradition of bipartisan cooperation initiated by its first chairman and now ranking member, hal rogers. i want to thank the distinguished ranking member for his advice and help in making this about eighter bill and for his staff, too, for working so closely and constructively with us. we agree on most of this bill and i believe this is a bill that every member in this body can get behind. in total the bill contains 42 -- $42.625 billion in appropriations for the department of homeland security. this is $2.6 billion or $6.5% above the comparable fiscal year 2009 amount and about 1% below the administration request excluding coast guard overseas contingency operations. this level reflects our share of the $10 billion cut made in the budget resolution to the administration's overall request. homeland security requires -- the chair: will the gentleman suspend? the committee will come to order. members will take their conversations off the floor.

at least the title of the bill. but when you start looking at it, reading it, listening to the people who it actually is going to affect, like general david petraeus, who i met at sent come last week and had -- at sent come last week and -- at centcom last week, he said it was it's going to tie our hands and not allow us to do what the military needs to do to train and assist in this issue. nobody has any qualms or quarrels with the majority side saying this is something that needs to be done. the issue is a jurisdictional problem with troords whether state or d.o.d. has input or actually controls what goes on in this program. look, i've been to pakistan and afghanistan three times in the last year. i understand what's going on there. i know how hard the pakistanis are fighting to control what's going on. we need to do what we can do to help with the counterinsurgency problem. even our own president, it's my understanding the president does not support this particular piece of legislation and it has already been said

these are reasons to approve the bill. for those who still harbor doubts, let me make a more practical argument. in march of 2007, the supreme court held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. under that ruling and the terms of the clean air act, the environmental protection agency is now effectively required to regulate co2 emissions. federal regulations for greenhouse gases is now inevitable. it is not a question of whether we are going to have regulation. the only question is whether the regulation will be carefully balanced, a congressionally adopted, economically sustainable regulations as contained within the bill before us today or whether we will have epa's regulation under the blunt information -- instrument of the clean act. given that choice and path of this bill charts for affordable electricity, for increased coal use in job creation, i would urge members to make the reasonable decision to approve today the clean energy act. i yield back the balance of my time and urged passage of the bill. >> time has expired. >>

under the kennedy bill in the senate. we haven't seen yet the c.b.o. score on how many millions of american coverage under the house democrat bill, but i suggest the number will probably be higher. study shows that it could be up to 100 million americans could lose their coverage if this government option is part of their plan. listen. the american people want us to reform healthcare. they want it done in a bipartisan way. and they want us to do our best to reduce costs in this program. i don't think americans want a big government-run program. they don't want their care rationed. and they clearly don't think they should be paying more. and all the proposals we've seen on healthcare are going to cost somewhere between 1 trillion and $2 trillion of new taxes on the american people to spend more on healthcare. most americans think they're already spending too much on healthcare, even the president said. you know, the problem with healthcare is they're spending too much. well, we are spending too much. i think republicans ha

the authors of this bill knew exactly what they were doing. what's changed over the weekend since i was out here for five hours-plus last week? public health experts arnold thd the country are beginning to read the bill, and they're beginning to go, oh, my gosh, do not pass, this this is a huge mistake. as a matter of fact, i'll get into it in a little while. i've got plenty of time that i'm going to spend on it. but understand that -- mr. president, there are only three reasons that we would consider new additional regulation: to reduce the rate of disease and death, and to reduce the prevalence of youth to access of tobacco products and specifically smoking. now, i know the president heard me say this last week. this is my chart of 50 states, and in 1998, the tobacco industry with settlement to states called the master settlement agreement, m.s.a. and in that agreement, they committed $280 billion to defray the costs of health care for the states -- specifically tir medicaid costs -- and also provided money to make sure that they could have p

the bill that is considered the base bill, 1256, takes these categories right here. nonfiltered cigarettes and filtered cigarettes, and it locks them in forever. the legislation says to the f.d.a., you cannot change these categories. unless you find some specific thing that would cause you to alter it. it forbids the f.d.a. and 1256, even though it creates a pathway to less harmful products, it's a pathway that can't be met because one of the conditions of new products entering the marketplace is you have to prove that people don't today use tobacco products won't be enticed to use these products. but it also says in 1256 that you can't communicate with anybody in the public unless you've got a product that's approved. so i ask you, mr. president, how do you meet the threshold of proving that somebody that doesn't use tobacco products is not going to use this product if you can't communicate with them until you get the product approved by the f.d.a. i've come to the conclusion since nobody who is a cosponsor or author of the bill has come up with an answer to me, that

the bill. well, it is mentioned in the bill but there is a two-tier standard in the bill that has been cleverly written in a manner to be an entry barrier to new innovative tobacco products. and that two-tier standard is, one, first must be achieved at the individual level and then you must achieve the standard at the public at large. and the purpose is truly an entry barrier. now, if we wanted to work together and truly have a new scientific pragmatic approach to improve the public health of our country, we would be doing both. we would be doing abstinence along with harm reduction. you see, that's exactly what henry waxman and others in this body do when it comes to teenage sex. they say, ok, by this body democrats and republicans in joint we have both. we promote abstinence while we also have policies that promote harm reduction. and our efforts to lower sexually transmitted diseases. with regard to h.i.v., there are needle exchange programs. while we also try to promote abstinence. but all

we haven't seen the whole bill. we haven't seen the part of the bill that is the biggest cost driver and the cbo wasn't able to give us a hard estimate, but the preliminary estimate is the increased cost by 1.3 trillion and if it were factored in fully, in other words, if there was a lead time here before it is up and fully running. if you went up to full speed on this bill it would be a $2.3 trillion increase in spending. 2.3 trillion increase in spending without three of the major sections scored yet because it doesn't exist. it sure doesn't contain costs. on the issue of quality, well, i have severe reservations as to what this will do to quality. it sets up this super made cal board called the mac, which will say what kind of insurance people will get, what type of insurance is covered and it will force 15 million out of their private insurance into public plans. all of this leads me to conclude that this will lead to something that will lead to delay, rationing and putting a gap between the doctor and his people

the shortest times, the labor health bill and the defense bill. i served on the appropriations committee from 1983 until i became majority leader 2 1/2 years ago. i'm fairly familiar with the procedures under which we operate. i tell my friend the republican whip that the reason for rising was to give us the opportunity to go to the committee, the rules committee and to provide for, as i said, time constraints in which we can effectively complete this bill. i want to say people -- we did not expect to have votes, we had votes, your side believed that we ought to have votes, so we had oa vote to rise. -- we had a vote to rise. but we have made efforts to try to reach agreement to provide a process in which we could complete the appropriation bills. very frankly, we think that in years past, there have been a lot of amendments that have been offered, not for the purpose of the substance of the amendment but for delaying the ability to get our work den. that may be -- work done. we've been in the minority ourselves we understand the frustration that e