this not to be much -- >> this has always been the case, you have had this force. i did not mean to interrupt. >> this is a policy issue, but the question is, are we going to prevent piracy will respond to this with the military force. we have been in the business of responding in providing to those who respond to this. >> certainly. >> i will pass. i have more questions -- but you have anything you would like to add? >> i want to ask you if you feel that the partnership with nato and the special operations capability is working well? >> we were addressing this earlier, the special operations coordinated center, is an up and running organization that is not fully capable yet, but the relationships that have occurred have developed a strong bond among the special operations forces. i was able to go to the first conference, and 28 countries came to the conference, it was remarkable how similar the conversations were and how the vision has across the special operations forces. some of them say that they have more in common with the special operations forces of other n

in this country and lose jobs in this country. let us not pass this bill. >> and his time has expired. the person from california? >> i reserve my time. >> the gentleman from california has 20.5 minutes. california has 28 1/2. mr. barton: thank you, madam speaker. i want to yield three minutes to the distinguished minority whip, mr. cantor of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman. there's one thing everyone this chamber should be able to agree on, we need to focus on job creation and relieve the burden on middle class families, not on middle class families, not increasing it. >> according to an mit study, the legislation will force middle-class americans to pay as much as $3,100 in high prices every year. the epa estimates that a family of four will pay an additional average of $1,100 each year. the impact on jobs is equally dismal. a cra study finds the legislation will cost america 2.3 million jobs. at a time whe

stop this addiction. if t. boone pickens can get out across this country and talk about this awful addiction and as thomas friedman said very eloquently, if the american policy of the previous administration is to leave no moola behind and find our funds we pay with american taxpayers, going to fund our enemies' efforts against our own troops in our efforts against terrorism, that is what this is about in the final analysis. it's about this great country of ours and making a stand for what we believe in, standing up for american dominance and for american dominance and superiority. yes, the chinese and indian nations are out there competing. we want to compete against them because we have better technology. we just have to make the investment here. and not in saudi arabia and libya and venezuela and russia and that's what the policies of previous administrations have led us to and that's where it must end today on this floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan

this is a revolution. this is a moment in history. this is what the american people were calling for in the election of 2008, a fundamental change that breaks our dependence upon imported oil, creates millions of new jobs, reduces the amount of pollution that we send up into the atmosphere, and points us in a new direction in our country, that breaks with this pattern of cyclical dependence upon imported oil coming from opec that holds our nation hostage. i urge an aye vote on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. goodlatte: i rise in strong opposition to this bill. i agree with one thing the gentleman from massachusetts had to sa

yet nothing here, nothing here in this bill. this bill is a burr cat's dream. it gives the e.p.a., the d.o.e. and many others, leverage over our energy markets. some in congress will have these buyer cats in their crosshairs aiming to game the system as this massively complex plan is implemented. i oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield to the the gentleman from kansas, mr. moore, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moore: i commend chairman waxman that will help the country make a transition to a new clean energy economy. i urge members to vote in support of the underlying bill. americans are demanding bold policies that will push our country in a new direction on energy and secure a clean energy future for america. this is a positive step forward, but i urge chairman waxman's leadership to strengthen the renewable electricity standard during the conference committee. a strong standard would mean more jobs in the united states and a larger share in domes

different angles at this and this is not, as mr. poe goes through his list on the july fourth and our founding fathers and what they sacrificed for, they sacrificed for freedom, not for government setting up credit swaps, protecting one group of people against another group of people, one region against another group of people, then when you complain, they make deals on the floor during the debate today. oh, i didn't realize that. there's such a lack of understanding that it takes that many pages by thtime we get done with the regulations there will be that stack across the whole top of that table and they'll still be inventing it as people sue and go to court. mr. gohmert: i appreciate so much, mr. souder, your great observations. you know, thomas jefferson said the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. and that's what we're seeing in this bill. the dramatic gains of the government's right to control your life in this bill are just extraordinary. and i do want to make a couple of quick po

this is really just five people, five of the nine agreed that the constitution means this or that, this is as good as if the great force of the states passed a constitutional amendment, along with a simple majority vote. eight supreme court justice is a powerful thing -- to interpret the words of the constitution. when justices break from the ideas of these practices, they began to create rights, and destroy rights, based on their personal view. which there were never given the power to do. the temptation to reinterpreted constitution leaves -- leads the judges, they succumb to the call of using that opportunity that they may possess, to enact something that they would like to see happen. maybe they thought they were courageous, and did something great. but we have seen some of these actions happen, under the power to regulate business and commerce, the government is given, the supreme court recently ruled that carbon dioxide, and nationally eckert -- naturally occurring substance in the environment, when the plants decay they -- they set this off -- they ruled that this was a pollutant

it's important that we defeat this procedural objection to this program and put this money into our economyve people a chance to buy in a car that is more fuel-efficient, put people back to work across america so we can start digging ourselves out of this recession whole. mr. president, i yield the floor been. >> mr. president. >> the senator from new hampshire. >> first off i appreciate this is a majority leader clear when the situation with, that this waiver issue is about and solely about the issue of cash for clunkers. a piece of legislation which has absolutely nothing to do, nothing to do with finding our troops in the field and was airdrop into a conference without being paid for. adding a billion dollars of new debt to our children's back. that's what this waiver is about. the majority leader has said it that this waiver will some way harm the ability to fund the troops, that is totally i believe to be inaccurate. this motion mw comes out of a piece of legislation which the majority leader and the assistant majority leader -- and they wrote the bill call that the honest leadership a

this is a war supplemental. this is not an imf bill. in view of the countries that will benefit from this are people that are not our friends like venezuela. yemen, syria, and zimbabwe. let us get all of the facts out there and not just part of them. the yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. he continues to resurface time. the gentleman from california. >> to demint from indiana is recognized for tenements. >> thank you. and thank the distinguished ranking member. there rights and opposition to the bill is underway today. i joined my democratic colleagues in supporting the bipartisan military supplemental bill which passed this house earlier in congress. when it comes to providing our sodas with the resources they need to get the job done in return and say, we must set aside politics as usual. we did that. i cannot support this military supplemental bill today. it is a disservice to the taxpayers of this country and to the brave men and women who depend as every day. people forget we are a nation at war. wi

this is an el nino in this model. this is a la nina which is colder in that model.ave volcanos in them but we'll take care of that in ú second. and the average volatilities which is in a straight line which is part of the greenhouse effect theory. the change in carbon dioxide is large. the response to carbon dioxide is log rhythmic and i guess we spent $10 spending you get a straight line which is something somebody in precalculus will do. anyway, this is a close-up of the behavior of the models in the nearágterm. we are right here. so we've gone through half of this -- a little less than half of 2000 to 2020 period and you can see that, in fact, the change models are very linear, constant rates of warming. and this is the warming since the beginning of the second warming of the 20th century beginning around 1977 and, in fact, if you fit a straight line to it, that's the best statistical fit to the estate. you could fit a log rhythm but it won't explain much variance. you could pit an exponent. any second order fit doesn't fit as well as a first order straight line.

because this is important because, again, as i said, this is going to cost jobs. jobs at the buck knife company up in the northwest part of the united states, hundreds of jobs. it's estimated that over 4,000 individuals in this country can be affected just in the knife industry alone. those individuals that not only the 4,000 there but about 20,000 other ancillary jobs out there and that's why it's so important we should be talking about this. but unfortunately again where we were last night, we weren't doing what we should have been doing. we should have had this amendment on the floor. i believe it's absolutely important that we make sure that the house has the right way that it should be going and that's by the process that we should be in, in the normal process, not in the process we're in today. but i thank the gentleman for yielding because i think the debate we're in is very, very vital to this country and i appreciate him for yielding. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: madam speaker, i inquire ho

this did not happen that this would be an interesting project. what is your responsibility to keeping ports open and how did you discuss this? can you talk about this? >> i will give you an example, of what we did last year. we were working closely with the coast guard, and there was a request for an amphibious ship and galveston was devastated by ike. the u.s.s. nassau was deployed. we have ships and you unload vessels that can respond and the navy was on board and they worked with the locals to open this up at the request of fema. >> do you have any of these ships on the gulf coast? >> on the east coast they would respond. >> and they are unable to get there in time? >> if we see the request we will move them and as we move them, we are looking at the path of the storm, to get them outside the path. >> one last question, about community disasters and other things, trailers and alternative housing. but because the season is well and to the storms will come, this is a nightmare and this is causing unmitigated suffering, on the part of the local o

many of this, in this room have many of this, in this room have been through it with their own family, someone who has practiced medicine, someone who has been a social it would add an incredible burden to a 65 year old to be able to come up with this medical directive. the way you would have to do it is at least probably consult with the lawyer. that is one issue. the other is, where would you get these medical directives if you are not consulting with the lawyer and how would you -- i am concerned that it will become a deterrent for applying for medicare. i am concerned that it is placing a tremendous, mandatory requirement on our potential beneficiaries. apart from whether we are in the appropriate area, i would be hesitant to endorse the bill even though i know what the gentleman from georgia is trying to achieve. there has been no hearings on this. i would like to know what a or b thought about this from the beneficiary side before we voted. >> what i would like to suggest, if we might -- and what i enter stand the cost constraints -- >> i've understand because constraint. >> i t

i would just urge this committee to vote no. >> all right. further debate on this? want a roll call? >> you bet. >> clerk will call the roll on tom coburn's amendment number 72. >> senator dodd. >> no. >> senator harkin. >> no. >> senator mikulski. >> no. >> no by proxy. >>er? bingham. >> no by proxy. >> senator murray. >> no. >> senator reid. >> no. >> senator sanders. >> no. >> senator brown. >> no. >> senator casey. >> no. >> senator hagan. >> no by proxy. >> senator berkeley. >> no. >> senator whitehouse. >> no. >> senator enzi. >> aye. >> senator greggg. >> aye by proxy. >> senator alexander. >> aye by proxy. >> senator burr. >> aye by proxy. >> senator mccain. >> aye by proxy. >> senator hatch. >> aye by proxy. >> senator macao ski. >> aye by proxy. >> senator kennedy. >> no by proxy. >> 10 ayes, 13 >> number 783. coburn number 73. >> this is just another level of trying to keep us accountable. since we don't want the states to do it, and we don't want to give the states flexibilities, how about if we find that a work force program is ineffective, allowing the

to be part of this. we have been friends for a long time and when we fought for the child care development block grant bill the first child care bill in history nobody thought we are going to get through but we did it in large measure because of your leadership. and i have to say that i am pleased that senator kennedy has delegated this committee to do and tom harkin and who i have worked with him very strongly on the health and other and barbara mikulski worked on the american action everybody on this committee. this is a committee that this war to help people in america and i came to for the first for years we got into some scraps and we have been scrapping all these years we developed a great love for each other and frankly i pray for him everyday and wish him well and we do miss them. there are so many bills to put together that he is a master legislator. in answer you in some of the others in this committee. this committee does build good leadership because of the myriad programs -- the largest auth

this is a shameless. this is wrong. this goes beyond rhetoric and i think about reading a back over history of justice marshall's confirmation hearing in the supreme court's, again he 129 add of 32 cases and the kind of questions embarrassment, are you prejudiced against the white people of the south? , on, give me a break. let's not go back to those kind of days. i would hope that the senate republicans would remember the proud history of the party of lincoln and the civil-rights act of 1960 and as a party that eventually voted unanimously for thurgood marshall to the united states supreme court, but justice marshall wasn't the only first to face adversity. when justice brandeis, when the size of the supreme court was nominated to the high court, he had to overcome severe anti-semitism of a significant opposition. the commentary at the time was questions about the jewish mind, how is operations are complicated by altruism. does that sound a little bit like an attack on abbott think? [laughter] like an attack on empathy

this bill will pass, now, if this point of order is sustained, this bill will pass this house and fully fund the troops. and then it will go back to the house of representatives and i cannot believe under any scenario that the house of representatives is not going to vote to fund the troops in the field; that they're going to hold funding of the troops in the field hostage to spending $1 billion and adding $1 billion of new debt on a extraneous bill that is about buying old cars. that doesn't even pass the smell test being credible. the bill will pass the house and be sent to the president probably before the day is out. that's the way it should be. that's why this rule, this point of order, was put in place. that's why the senator from illinois, working with the senator from nevada, the leaders on the other side of the aisle, created this very good and appropriate rule so that things like this could be addressed in a surgical way and so they would not lead to adding $1 billion in this case which is a lot of money, by the way. i know a couple of members came to the floor and said, it is

pain not in this committee. maybe not on this bill. at some point in time because it benefits the american consumer, it benefits 50% of the american people that have to take prescription drugs every day and it's to their benefit and sooner or later they will prevail. with that, mr. chairman, i know we'll go through the same argument and discussion and obviously, i would request a recorded vote on the amendment, but i also wouldn't want to take too much time from the committee because we have pretty well ventilated this issue a number of times in the past. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman? >> senator mccain, this is the same amendment offered as the mccain-dorgan-snow language? >> i think the senator from north dakota would prefer to call it dorgan. >> i apologize but that is the same amendment. i know the issue has been raised by senator enzi. that is the question of whether or not, whether it was the cochran or roberts language -- is it part of this bill or not? i don't know the answer to that? >> according to senator mccain's staff, it

in this bill, mr. chairman, the organization is funded at our recommendation of $44 million -- of $44,023,000 which i repeat is at the budget request. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. i've -- i'm often told you shouldn't be challenging member earmarks, because we should be going after the faceless bureaucrats and the things the administration proposes and we don't look at enough system of here's a case where the administration, not just the previous administration, but administrations before that, have said this is duplicative, it's a center in search of a mission. it ought to be shut down. we could save $44 million a year. yet we won't do it. if we're not going to cut this, where will we cut? let me quote a performance summary for f.y. 20 10. the most significant challenge for ndic is its lack of funding source. if that's the biggest challenge they've got, not you know, finding a strategic mission or way to help in the drug contr

this is a key element to the economic stability of this industry. these programs monitor the health and sustainability of the lobster resources and are the foundation of the industry management program. their continuation is not only essential to the successful preservation of the lobster population, but the preservation of tens of thousands of jobs in the state of maine. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. contrary to the gentlelady from maine, i did not come here quite angry, but i do come here disappointed. i'm sure her motives are good and pure, but she has brought to us an earmark that takes $200 ,000 away in order to benefit people in her congressional district. maybe she doesn't understand what $200,000 means to the working families of the 5th congressional district of texas and ultimately maybe she doesn't understand why 46 cents on the dollar, borrowing it from

so this amendment is not necessary. this is a blocking amendment. this is an in the way amendment. this amendment is written so broadly that it would also prohibit commonly accepted techniques that the census bureau uses for quality control and other surveys. next year the census bureau will use sampling as a part of its coverage measurement program in order to escalate how well it counted the enre country. this amendment interferes with that. the census bureau uses sampling for other statistical work, including the american community survey. it provides congress and the public with specific and valuable data about our nation's population. that is what states and local governments need in order to make the best decisions they can make. it is important, too, for policy making at the federal level. we want to make sure that the bill can still provide this necessary information. please do not tie their hands. as chair of the committee that has oversight of this, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. this is an awful amendment. it does not do anything to help to get to where w

this bill is not four weeks. this is 12 weeks. most federal workers, when they retire have a significant amount of accrued, even when they leave in general, accrued sick leave you might ask why. well, because the typical sick leave for federal workers is 13 days a year. that's nearly three weeks a year you get to be sick, on top of 20, depending on your seniority, 20 to 26 days a year of vacation. so you're looking at five weeks of vacation, on top of that you're looking at nearly three weeks of sick leave. we're being told bhi the majority they can't make those tradeoffs to use some of that when a child is born. it's a joyous occasion when a child is born. it's an important occasion when a child is adopted. it's sometimes a critical time when a foster child, battered, beaten, or simply unloved, is brought into the home. the minority has no question at all but the importance of this. it's been a long time since 1993. this is well established to be something in which people make the sacrifices without sacrificing their jobs. we hav

so it was just this immediate comparison that how, you know, alito was writing this decision and how different it would have been if o'connor had been on the court, and that, of course, led to that very pointed dissent, outraged dissent by justice ginsberg. okay. the other case that i wanted to highlight just because it also, i think, is such a fascinating big-picture issue in terms of the way we look at the courts and the laws, this dna case out of the state of alaska. this is in your materials, the decision just came down. william osborn was convicted of rape, and postconviction he wanted to get access to his genetic material for dna testing, and the state of alaska refused. and so he argued that he had a constitutional right, substantive to due process right to access that genetic evidence for his dna testing because he thought he could prove his innocence even though he had at one point confessed. so this case sharply divided the court by a vote of 5-4, but the reason i find it so fascinating and i strongly encourage you to take a look at this opinion is it's just a, to me, a bea

and i would hope he would understand that this is an essential part of this legislation than this was carefully crafted as we consulted with people across various jurisdictions within the institutions to make sure we could provide them to be secure and serve the needs of this nation. i think this has been a good faith effort to do that and i would hope we reject the amendment and ask for a no vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. price: carefully crafted? 24.2% increase, $13 billion increase? carefully crafted? i never suggested that these programs weren't important. what i suggested, mr. chairman, that out out of the entire tpwhoifpblgt department of justice, can we not save a penny on a dollar? can we not save a penny on a dollar? when the american people are struggling across this land to find pennies that they -- that the federal government is stealing from them? can we not just save a penny on a dollar? i

this is no good. they fabricated some documents of government performance and they handed them out here and there. we can see. we know what is happening in this country and we know that these are all against the facts. they are not true. they swore then they call the president superstitious. they called him names, which is embarrassing. they forgot about morality and law. on the other hand, almost the same thing happened by the other candidate. the performance of the past 30 years, it was undermined. some people's names were mentioned. the people who are among the great personalities of this establishment. they are the same people who spent most of their life for the cause of this revolution. i have never mentioned people's names in a sermon. i have to mention some names here. s of a quick, -- specifically, [unintelligible] i have to mention their names. i have to tell people. of course, nobody has accused these gentlemen of corruption. regarding the relatives and family members, if anyone has any com

, i would say to this amendment, to my friend from oklahoma, this amendment i think is approaching thisissue more with sort of a broad ax than the scalpel that my friend from oklahoma normally utilizes in his legislative approaches. for that reason would urge the defeat of the amendment. >> well, my chairman makes a wonderful debate. the problem is, we don't ask anybody else -- everybody else in the country's doing this. every business is doing it. every home's doing it. and what the american people would like to see is us doing it. to make priorities. and i understand your lack of enthusiasm for this amendment. but it makes the point. we're going to spend money to save money. and we can spend less and save more. if, in fact, we do what we're requiring of everybody else in the country to do today. is to do more with less. and we haven't ever goinged out, under republican control or democrat control, how to do that. and it has to start somewhere. and this is a great place to start. the fact is, we're not highly efficient. in what we do. and a lot of the lack of efficiency we have, we don

who led this country and was strongly supported by this country. and i want you to know that i and i want you to know that i supported ronald rageon on most

congress and this committee. now, there's some hard facts to be addressed. there's a scientific consensus that we need to address climate change quickly and effectively. we need and industry needs certainty. this bill gives certainty to american industry. without this certainty new expansion and new investment in this difficult time is not going to occur. there will be jobs which will flow from this legislation. actions by the supreme court, and i urge my colleagues to be scared to death by this -- mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dingell: actions by the supreme court in a finding by e.p.a. makes it critically important that we act. otherwise greenhouse gases will be regulated by e.p.a. and if you want something to shutter about, i beg you to take a look at that because we will see better than 300 different kinds of regulations coming from federal and state bodies who are in charge of this. now, this bill does protect

this, also, is where polioviruses are right along this area. when you look at what was in place to serve these people, to manage the program, there was one primary health care center within the flood zone area if i remember correctly, for an area of 100 kilometers, 20 kilometers wide, ten million people during the flooding periods. you need to be able to put in place if you want to reach these children, you have to put in place the infrastructure to do it and this is what our team in india did. they laid down very quickly a whole infrastructure to deliver not just the polio vaccine, routine vaccinations, other basic interventions. you have to put that infrastructure in place. the third thing, speaking to the memory of bathwater, you have got to establish robust capacity for all aspects of communications. this has become one of the biggest, most diverse parts of our program which i am not going to go through in detail. just to give you detail of the point class a, i spoke to this team in india who sent this out, i asked for his reflections on a

if you look at this chart, this is how this process will work. with the e.p.a. being in the middle, look at all of these different agencies that are involved. this is the most elaborate thing that i've seen. you know, i've been here awhile. and i've seen some pretty craze question things. but i have never seen anything this -- crazy things. democrats in rural america are going to have to make a real decision about whether they're going to stand with speaker pelosi and liberal special interests or whether they're going to stand with their constituents who are going to be punished by this ridiculous tax. listen, there's a big difference between san francisco and the heart land. al gore stands for higher electricity bills, higher gasoline prices, and shipping millions of jobs overseas. some of our members still remember his b.t.u. tax from 1993 where he tried this idea of imposing this tax on all b.t.u.'s used in the country. a lot of democrat members got burnt on that vote. for those of you that might have been around. so it's no surprise that as quickly as al gor

read this.hat happened to the promise that the american people will see what is in here. we do not have time to do this. >> you have to be kidding. >> if there was a massive bill with the devil in the details, it is this. >> a misdirected spending spree. >> the biggest redistribution of wealth is -- in the nation's history. >> democrats think we should borrow more money. >> this is the answer in a democratic congress, we have seen this time and time again. >> by being united, republicans are sending a signal to the united states, that the policies of this congress and this administration are wrong. >> i have not seen a republican congress as unified, the conference is unified in the opposition of the new government. >> the american people will be able to count on republicans as we face the issues as they relate to health care, spending, energy, all of those issues. we will represent the view of the american people, and we will make sure that we are on their side, always. always. [applause] >> la

this religious -- this is religious democracy. this is what brings the hearts of people closer together and it pushes them to the scene. this was our ordeal. that's what i wanted to point out. this election. the second point regarding the election is that last friday's election showed that the people have their confidence, they have their hope, they have their fervor and they live in this country with all the enthusiasm and feelings they have for their country. this is against what some media and your enemies say in their propaganda. that people in this country are not hopeful in the future, they will never take part in any election. if people do not confide in the islamic establishment, they will never vote. if people do not feel free, they will never attend the polling stations. trusting the islamic establishment was evident in this election. and i will tell you later on that the enemies targeted this very trust of the people in the islamic establishment. they want this trust to be crushed. that's what the enemies want. this con

this is a revolution. this is a moment in history. this is what the american people were calling for in the election of 2008, a fundamental change that rates are dependent on oil, create millions of new jobs, reduces the amount of pollution that we send out into the atmosphere, and points us in a new direction in our country that breaks this pattern of cyclical dependent upon imported oil coming from opec that holds our nation of. i urge and i vote for this bill. >> the demand from oklahoma. >> alike to recognize the man from virginia. >> [unintelligible] i rise in strong opposition. i agree with one thing he had to say. that is this bill has a very important consequences. those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. it is in pursuit of the fantasy of thinking that this legislation will cause us to be able to turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing co2 gas emissions when china and india are pumping more and more into the atmosphere all the time. we would be far better served with legislat

i think it was very sad that on this this floor yesterday, eight hours was spent on a bill, where $64 billion of taxpayer money was being spent. and we were trying to bring up amendments to cut that rapid growth in spending. and people just last night and today in the leadership on this floor actually used the comments that delaying tactics, they called our amendments to cut spending delaying tactics. some of their members used the term nonsense and foolishness when describing our amendments to cut spending. now, some people on the other side want to spend money so fast that if we put up an amendment to cut spending, to cut growth in spending, they call that a delaying tactic. i think americans across this country want more of those type of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive federal spending, money we don't have. every dollar we spend in congress from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. we don't have that money. we need controls. and i would urge opposition to this. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ala

thank you again for your attention to this matter. this is of great importance to my district. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. price: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: yacht is recognized -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman. i rise to -- for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee to highlight a serious concern with regard to fema's subcontracting practices. price peruse i welcome a colloquy with my distinguished colleague. mr. garrett: thank you. chairman price, i have constituents in my district in the state of new jersey who have highlighted a current fema solicitation for risk map production. what it does, it seems to shut out the small and the medium and the small and medium sized businesses. back after hurricane katrina fema was, rightly so, criticized for issuing sole source contracts to three very large companies. unfortunately that pattern seems to be r

this bill is very helpful in this process with this legislation. it is actually moving the legislation and hoping that it will be warmly received. >> a core part of the report was exactly that, the finding what the lanes of the road are and how the government sectors work together. we know that this has been a problem for some time. we have not had a response plan. that was only one part of the plan. i echoed most of the sentiments heard here. partnership for what purpose? people throw that around without any content behind it. what relationships do you need to develop? what do you need from the industry as government? what can government give industry? getting people to report to you incidence, that has always been a big problem. people who were asking the report, did not receive what benefits they get out of it. making that clear is the government and industry problem. i do not think that government is necessarily going to pick up and get the 300-page thing off the shelf either. we need to have a defined lanes of the road. >> can i ask him a ques

in this particular case, this flood control district before we started earmarking this account applied for a grant under the predisaster mitigation program and got a grant. so exetively they established that they had need for it. that's how it should be. but then the next year, i don't know if it was going to get the grant or just didn't want to apply, but money was earmarked and then the next year earmarked again. now this year there's another earmark for that same flood control district. i think it's time to let fema decide under a risk-based formula where this funding should go. we all know the process here. it's why we have a commission to close military bases, because we simply can't discipline ourselves as members to say that district or that base in my district may need to be closed. and then we move to protect other people's bases if they'll protect ours. the process of log rolling takes affect. that's why it's best to establish criteria and let the agency do the work. if we don't like how they do it, we exercise oversight and force them to change the program and to do it equit

11 this began? >> i don't know that i'm going to get into those kind of operational details and i don't know that it requires frankly initial steps to be sent to the region. i think that we have a host of assets in the pacific, in and around the waters that north korean ships which favors dad -- but i think fundamentally, gordon, i think our authorities and responsibilities when the united nations survey council resolution 1874 are clear and we have the resources and assets in the region that would allow us to perform our duties under that and so we continue to as we have for quite some time to monitor north korean shipments and should as the security council resolution calls for should reasonable grounds -- should there be reasonable grounds to believe that one of those ships is carrying banned cargo we have the authority is under the security council resolution to take action. >> from a practical standpoint of the ships in port reducing it to be inspected and, then what? >> it depends on what port

, because its effect would be to stop action so desperately needed by this country in this global. i urge my colleagues to pass this bill and take this historic opportunity for our children, our grandchildren and generations yet unborn. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i really hate to do this. you file a 300 page amendment at 30 9:00 a.m., the american people need to know what is in this bill. -- at 3:00 and 9:00 p.m., the american people need to know what is in this bill. the federal and financial institution shall not, later than six months, revised its standards for the performance of real estate appraisers in connection with federally related transactions under the jurisdiction of the agency to comply with the requirement under the amendments made by paragraph 1 of this section. now, we have to retrain every appraiser in america so that they understand this law so that they know how to properly appraise the value of someone's property. oh, i have not finished. for qualifications regarding consideration of any renewable sources for energy efficiency, every appraiser is n

this is how this process will work. with the epa being in the middle, look at these different agencies that are involved. this is the most elaborate thing that i have seen. i have been here a while. i have seen some pretty crazy things. i have not seen anything this ridiculous. democrats and rural america will have to make some real decisions on whether they will stand with speaker pelosi and special interest or whether they will help their constituents who will be punished by this ridiculous tax. there's a big difference between san francisco and the heartland. some members still remember his btu tax from 1993 where he tried this idea of imposing this tax on all btu pros's used in the country. it is no surprise. it seems that he was disinvited rather quickly. mark my words. the american people will remember this vote. this will be a defining moment and a dividing -- and a defining vote in the congress. house republicans have the better plan. it will produce more energy, more green energy, lower energy prices, and actua

this done by tomorrow. if we can't we will stay in a number two completed. i'll try to complete that much of this and leave the remaining issues where our discussion later on so that is a sense of how my to proceed in the committee to complete our work. >> are you still anticipating having some kind of a draft to was before we leave for the brain? >> if i can do that i was like to do that for you and if that is possible i will, but i will get it to you as soon as we can even if we are not to get it to members who have an opportunity whenever they plan on a journey but if i can get it to you and i will. on those matters and i realize how and for that is to review this before we come back so those are importance and i hope we have old-time. >> old china two not been in jam anybody and we have thinking about amendments and you have my word on that. >> and i am going to appreciate what cbo means and how problematic that can be a. >> i do want to say something about the schedule because i think the three open ar

and the fact that we stand firmly on this common ground, on this common foundation that has always been incidentally common ground among chancellors of germany and presidents of the united states and incidentally also of congressmen and governors, that is something that we need to keep and it is also something where the dignity of each individual needs to be guiding our young. but we also are aware of the fact that such a basis of shared values is simply not enough in order to turn this into practical success, practical worth. what is also apparent in the 23 century we as europeans have become more closely integrated then we have in the beginning of the federal republic of germany, sometimes seen as a complicated bunch of people by outsiders. it is still interesting when you look at the nuances of the individual is european countries, the way that individual heads of states of european countries look at matters quite differently but you may rest assured that we understood in a world of an 6.5 million people we as europeans have to learn the decisive lesson to spake with one voice. we ar

i think this is one. he has made quite a mark on the supreme court threw his dissents, being but very powerful and different. he is often alone. he was in the voting rights case and in the district search case. there are areas of the law where he has shaped it quite significantly. . next topic. time does run. we would love to say more. john, could you take us into the case procedure? >> i would like to talk about the ikbal case, which is a case about civil procedure. i would like to make the case that this is programs the most important case of the term practsly and gives us the strongest window into the roberts court and the warren case. it comes out of the terrorism context, and though it isn't decided in that context, he was someone who was picked up after 9/11 9/11 and complained that he was treated in an improper way because he was a muslim. it was essentially a discrimination case, and the court resolves and the court resolves the case looking at the rules of meaning. it rejects the claim in a 5-4 d

this goes to the heart of this in so many ways. if this fails and we're not making the kind of effort -- not only making the effort, but iffest is not succeeded in this area and we end up with a new wave of foreclosure coming in, as we could, swamping the kind of efforts being made. this thing is beginning to gain traction. things are beginning to improve. confidence and optimism clearly seem to be getting better, and what none of us want to see is this all of a sudden stalling out and falling back. if it does, to regain that momentum again i think will be a lot harder than it was in the initial effort. so, this is a critical moment, it seems to me, not to lose that momentum, however slight it may be, but certainly momentum heading in the right direction for the first time, in months in my view. but failure in this area i think would throw us back in ways that i think would make it very difficult to recover. i'd be very interested in ideas how we can -- we don't want to wait weeks or months whether or not it's working. the concern

: this is their position -- i will quote this. quote -- the right to develop -- this is china talking -- the right to develop is a basic human right that is undeprivable economic and social development and poverty eradication is the first and overriding priorities of the developing nations. so chinese china is talking about themselves an india and other other developing nations. the right to develop -- development of developing countries should be adequate and effectively respected and ensured in -- in the process of global common efforts in fighting against climate change. now that statement -- that's their written statement. that speaks for itself. finally, the most telling of all, the chinese and other developing countries argue that the price for reducing their emission sincere a massive 1% of

we didn't want to save this, this, this and this. we wanted to see what works out there. >> let me say to my friend on the appropriations committee, vague language, i've seen the results of that many times in the past and it has resulted in billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars being waste with earmarked pork barrel spending against corruption and that's why i'm against it. >> well -- >> -- i've seen it time after time. >> every section of this bill we've put evaluations, evaluations, evaluations, so part of the money we're talking about here we're still back to the enzi amendment, i think. part of the money we're talking about will be used for constant evaluations of what works and what doesn't work. >> it's very important to remember that this is directed spending. so it's even taken a further level away from any congressional oversight because it doesn't go through the appropriations discretionary process, it's just, bang, every year $8 billion goes into a slush fund called a trust fund. goes into the slush fund for the purp

really can't do this on its own. we can be a leader in the process but we very much need the active collaboration of the other countries involved. are allies, our allies, south korea and japan, our partners, china and russia. >> is there any reason to believe that if the leadership mantle passes two kim jong-il's son, that it will result in any kind of a change in the leadership there with respect to decision-making? >> i have no reason to speculate one way or the other on that. as i said earlier, quoting former secretary of defense, william perry, i think you have to deal with korea as it is, not how it might be in the future. >> is there any information to suggest there might be disagreements within the north korean government regarding their nuclear policy? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you senator shaheen guss senator corker, i know he has indicated to me he is not going to ask questions so this action follows if nation's recent nuclear underground test and subsequent missile testifieses in violation of previous

what this case shows is that this person is not limited to antitrust. across the board, there is a requirement that you show this reasonable submission even during the pleating case. it has been cited almost 7000 times in the two years that it has been decided. that issued the enormous significance of this. all cases can be addressed at the pleading stage. the possibility of pleading going poleward is important. second, it gives us an enormous powerful window in the changes in how we regard a justice in the united states. some of the liberal pleading cases, from the court. it really tries to get a balance between two kinds of consideration. on one hand, if you want people to come to the court and make their case even if they do not have possession of all of the backs. -- facts. on the other hand, if you come to the court, they could have the advantage of a huge amount of discovery. it depends on what we are going to wait for more strongly about how liberal our pleadings rules will be. and i think what the tomalley and it was suggested that in and there

this is a giant chat mountain. all of this contaminated soil. this side of the chat mountain is treece. the other side is oklahoma. same situation, same problem, same contaminated soil, same sink hole and the same thing on the other side, except e.p.a. 7 in kansas city can't get it through their heads that this is identical to the same problem over here. and instead of spending $25 million to clean up and put topsoil on contaminated soil that will sink, why can't we spend $3 million to save a community of treece and relocate these people? so basically e.p.a. section 7 does not have factual basis, quote, according to them, that would allow the use of regular or stimulus funds for a residential buyout at the treece subsite. why? why? we were going to spend money for a road to be built twice. we're spending $25 million to put topsoil on a sink hole. why can't we spend $3 million to relocate this town? now, here's my question. e.p.a. acknowledged there is evidence of harm to humans. to humans. and they listed a whole series of other animals and wild