woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess what must be happening here is we are wasting our time on unconstitutional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hastings: we are wasting our time on pate antley unconstitutional measures. i won't go into all of the details about the need to address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people. but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

the bill states that the 2011 spending bill h.r.-one would become a lot of the senate does not pass the 2011 spending bill by next wednesday. hr-1 fell to pass the senate in march. the senate is not expected to act on today's house bill. here is the house floor debate on that. it is about nine minutes. mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as we debate the future course of government spending, we need to be honest with the people of this country about the current fiscal state of affairs. america averages now trillion-dollar deficits. we borrow nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. given the fiscal clout that hangs over our country, it is reckless to assume we can live pain-free forever. sooner or later something has to give. to give families and business confidence that their future won't be plagued by inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates, our majority vowed to move forcefully to cut spending. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: we mad

we could pass a member pay bill today and take the senate bill from the desk. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful and that is deal with the pay of the president and the congress and actually has a chance because it has already passed the senate of being enacted into law. i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: this has been an interesting experience for me as a freshman member of congress and a co-sponsor of the underlying legislation. i haven't had my motives impugned quite as much in the previous days as i've been impugned today. we're trying to m

the very first bill they passed was a bill to defund the health care bill, which gave so many services to women and eliminated discrimination on the basis of gender. we think that is wrong, and we will fight to make sure that that does not happen. the second thing they did, they passed a bill that said you cannot buy an insurance policy and get a tax credit as if you offer for reproductive services. we are not going to let that happen, either. you might have heard as well as a few other far-right social issues that the thing that is holding up the budget negotiations right now is their desire to deny women in the district of columbia the right to full reproductive services. we are not gone to let that happen, either. make no mistake about it. there is a systematic assault on women's health care. health care. prevention, birth control, full reproductive rights, and it is happening right now, right down the hill, and there's only one way to stop it, because we do not have a pro-troops majority in the u.s. house of representatives. in thet-troy's majority house of representatives. -- pro-

read the bill. anybody that doubts that republicans are targeting medicare, look at what the budget committee is doing. it will be there in black and white when it's published. it will be there and it states unequivocally that medicare as we know it will be ended. senior citizens, according to the c.b.o., will pay more and get less. that is not what i think the american people want. i would just remind my colleagues that as a new poll that came out, 66% of seniors reject the plans to end medicare as we know it. so, you know, i think if you interpret the results of the last election to go after medicare and seniors' health care i think you misread the results of the last election. the last election was about jobs. we all need to come together and protect jobs and help creation of more jobs in this country. you want to end the deficit, put people back to work. here we are in april and yet you have yet to bring one single bill to this floor that helps create jobs and helps protect jobs. we need to -- m

woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess wt must be happening here is we are wasting our time on unconstitional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hastings: we are wasting our time on pate antley unconstitutional measures. i won't go into all of the details about the need to address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people. but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is reco

woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess what must be happening here is we are wasting our time on unconstitutional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hastings: we are wasting our time on pate antley unconstitutional measures. i won't go into all of the details about the need to address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people. but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

the underlying bill which mr.oodall is a co-sponsor says -- implies that the senate has passed a bill which already failed there, it assumes or deems the president has signed the bill, which he threatened to veto. april fool's america, there is no senate or office of presidency today under the republican majority bill. the republican spending bill badly damages our fragile economic recovery according to 300 economists of all political stripes and threatens to send us spiraling into another republican recession. and as we have heard early this week, the republican answer to 14 million americans who lost their jobs and can't find new ones is, stop talking about jobs. so at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman, mr. woodall, for 15 seconds, to ask him just a simple question. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd be happy to answer that question. mr. ellison: i would like to ask the gentleman, how many jobs does this bill create? mr. woodall: by eliminating the crushing federal deficit that we ha

was next bill's in the early '80s-- and steve would be saying to bill "bill, you've got to hire more people. we need to hire 35 people just to fulfill our contrt obligations" and bill would be saying "steve, what if we don't get more contracts? somebody could go bankrupt?" and steve would say "i don't care, but we have to hire these people." anyway, you can imagine that and the door basically almost vibrating from the intensity of their discussion. >> rose: so that brings me to the conflict between the two of you. what was at its score in >> you know, i think bill and i were kind of i didn't know and yang in terms of our ability to talk about a tough question and hash it out. i think there was a stylistic difference in terms of intensity and how... and the way he discussed things because i'm very logical person, some might say low key and bill and steve lead with lots and lots of intensity so there was a stylistic difference there and as things evolved not only that but as things evolved i became more and more focused just on the technology side and bill and steve on the business sid

bill 388. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful and ensure that members of congress don't get paid during a shutdown of government and has a real chance of being enacted into law and signed by president obama. i urge a no vote on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. and i appreciate the gentleman from colorado for this wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today. madam speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the clean air act or the regulation of air pollution. it does interfere with the e

a bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about and a bill we don't want. if my -- the rules committee refused to recognize my amendment which would redirect the money to the d.c. public schools and to our own public charter schools, 40% of our children go to this alternative, it has a long waiting list, to our choice, not the republicans' choice. the second amendment would strike a shameful -- the second -- my second amendment would strike a second writer that keeps the district from spending our own local taxpayer raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income women. local money, local choice. the majority proposed to close down the government rather than pass my amendment to allow d.c. to spend its own local funds. now, the majority wants a rule with amendments that profoundly affect only the district of columbia. i will have no vote on this floor on any part of this bill. no wonder -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i appreciate the gentleman. the majority will allow a vote on every other member -- i wond

a bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about and a bill we don't want. if my -- the rules committee refused to recognize my amendment which would redirect the money to the d.c. public schools and to our own public charter schools, 40% of our children go to this alternative, it has a long waiting list, to our choice, not the republicans' choice. the second amendment would strike a shameful -- the second -- my second amendment would strike a second writer that keeps the district from spending our own local taxpayer raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income women. local money, local choice. the majority proposed to close down the government rather than pass my amendment to allow d.c. to spend its own local funds. now, the majority wants a rule with amendments that profoundly affect only the district of columbia. i will have no vote on this floor on any part of this bill. no wonder -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i appreciate the gentleman. the majority will allow a vote on every other member -- i wond

there is a reduction in the defense bill in this bill. for those of who you are concerned that it might have had an adverse effect on our nation's defense, it will not. we don't want to make very many more cuts in the defense bill because today we all know what the requirement is. there's discussion at the white house and with the secretary of defense who almost seem to disagree now that there should be more cuts, mo draconian cuts. you can't do that. you can't just pick out a number for defense out of the air. you can't roll the dice. you can't spin the wheel. you've got to make your funding and your investment in national defense based on what is the threat to this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to congressman mike walz, distinguished leader here in the house, from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkans

a bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about and a bill we don't want. if my -- the rules committee refused to recognize my amendment which would redirect the money to the d.c. public schools ando our own public charter schools, 40% of our children go to this alternative, it has a long waiting list, to our choice, not the republicans' choice. the second amendment would strike a shameful -the second -- my second amendment would strike a second writer that keeps the district from spending our own local taxpayer raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income women. local money, local choice. the majority proposed to close down the government rather than pass my amendment to allow d.c. to spend its own local funds. now, the majority wants a rule with amendments that profoundly affect only the district of columbia. i will have no vote on this floor on any part of this bill. no wonder -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i appreciate the gentleman. the majority will allow a vote on every other member -- i wonder i

i cannot tell you what his bill will look like, what senator schumer's bill will look like. what i can say it is all those pieces work together to ultimately come up with something that is hopefully, at least, something that we can create a foundation from. comprehensive immigration reform has to be broad enough to make -- give us the foundation to build more, but i do not think it will be done at that point. there will be a lot of issues that will not happen in the first go round that will need to be perfected, but me to do enough to turn immigration into something that is not so politicized and is more about really getting down to the problems. i wanted to address briefly some by pointing out, you cannot always tell what will happen based on one set of votes. in the dhhs appropriations bill for 2010, in the senate, and there were a lot of horrible amendments to make e-verify mandatory, inshore every inch of the fence was real, we get ensure every inch of the fence was real, not virtual. -- ensure every inch of the fence was real, not virtual. a lot of people said, my goodn

rogers taking on bill from last year and putting it into this bill. the community services block grant program is restored. w.i.c. is restored. head start is restored. yes, there's some things i don't like. no high speed rail money. some other investment accounts. literacy programs, some of them were taken away. some of the cuts in homeland security were not the best. but as with any compromise some members will see a glass half full and some will see a glass half empty. members will have to consider all the ramifications of this compromise and vote their conscience. we need to move on to the f.y. 2012 appropriations bill. the bottom line is this bill must pass today. let's get it done so we can fight against the ryan republican budget. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you

and we're here tonight to say, this bill is the wrong bill for this country. but we're not willing to leave it go at that. we understand that true health care reform will include medical malpractice reform, we needer to the reform in this country -- we need tort reform in this country, we need to increase the use of health savings account, we need to make insurance portable so we can, when a person loses their job, they don't necessarily lose their health care coverage. we need to allow for the purchase of health care across state lines. we need to put the patient back in the center of health care. and i contend that this health care bill does not do that. so as we sat around and i said to my group of health care advisors and i said to them, what is it that concerns you most regarding health care in this country? and the first thing was, our health care this health care bill that was just passed. and when you get into why did does it concern you, because it adds so many layers of bureaucracy and regulations to an already ladened bureaucracy and already an indu

that bill has a hearing next month, and we will have to react quickly to that bill. we are prepared to do so once the amendment is made. chairperson campos: if i may, in terms of our involvement, may be on the resolution, what else can we do in terms of our advocacy? >> we have been active at the coalition that has been working on this. miss miller and myself have been reaching out to some of the same people on the government side that we reached out to when prop. 16 was coming about, to make sure they are aware that 790 is out there. we're working in course with the broader goal to give the bill as much support as we can. chairperson campos: ms. miller? >> i was going to add that we're going to send them a model resolution. this helps move things along, and model resolution and a staff report to present to their government entities. chairperson campos: commissioner mirkarimi? vice-chairperson mirkarimi: has the california puc ever taken legislative considerations like this themselves? >> yes, the cpuc is allowed to take positions on legislation before them, just lik

that's all this bill does. it's not affecting fuel efficiency standards that nhtsa states, that nhtsa regulates and will continue to regulate. it doesn't have anything to do with that. we're simply saying greenhouse gases should not be regulated under the existing clean air act. we disagree with the supreme court decision that gave the e.p.a. the authority to make a decision and we definitely disagree with the endangerment finding which i think was fatally flawed. you know, we can do a lot on decreasing oil imports both by supply increases in the united states and letting the market operate in an efficient fashion. we don't need the e.p.a. to have some sort of a strangle hold on oil production -- strangle hold on oil production in the united states of america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute remaining. mr. markey: and how much time does the other side have? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has one minute remaining. mr. markey: and who has the ri

in other words, this bill contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week to week bill did. it also takes all cuts from only a small slice of the budget. frankly, madam speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility. especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the secretary of defense himself has called the pentagon's culture of endless money. this partisan patch contradicts republicans' own promises to put everything on the table. defense spendingncluded. listen to their own words as reported by the associated press on january 23, quote, the house's new majority leader, representative carke cantor of virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board. but of course they haven't done th. "new york times" january 27 representative chris gibson, a tea party endorsed freshman republican and retired army colonel said, made it clear, that no part of the pentagon's $550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in iraq and afghanistan was immune. he said this, this deficit that we have th

ultimately, the bill passed out. that committee had been -- they had a number of members that resided entirely within santa clara county. going in, we have a feel for how that might turn out. the recommendation to the management here, and the city and county representatives, is that as this bill continues through the assembly and goes through appropriations, we need to jump ahead and start working the senate transportation committee, so they do not wait for that activity. that committee is not welcoming for northern california and has very few representatives, but does have knowledgeable chairman. i think that he will give us a fair fight. we have our work cut out for us on this measure. we thought that we had some sympathy going in the committee in terms of reaching consensus in the legislature. ntc was very vigorous in its support for the bill and were able to convince the folks that it was an isolated pocket of resistance within the region. so, that was all that took. supervisor elsbernd: in terms of ultimate outc

in your civics books from eighth grade, that is a bill, and these members voted on this bill. they are invested, and this is a legislative product, and they are not going to walk away from that which they voted for and debated in full public view for four straight days in lieu of the senate bill that does not even exist in their mind. has not gone through the legislative process, does not have its heft. so they ask why theyul

the house bill will get -- the house bill we'll get today does precisely that. democratic leaders have identified a number of cuts they believe are reasonable. the spending cuts that the house bill will get today go no farther than that. democrat leaders have said they wanted no controversial policy riders. that's what we just heard our majority leader talking about. but the policy provisions in the bill we'll get today are provisions that members of the democratic leadership have already voted for and that the president himself has previously signed into law. it will be pretty hard to argue that that's controversial. so here's the bottom line. the bill does everything democrats have previously said they want. it cuts washington spending by an amount that democratic leaders believe is reasonable. the policy prescriptions it contains have been previously agreed to by democratic leaders and signed by this president, and most importantly, this is the only proposal out there that keeps the government open, the only one that's coming over from the house. in other wor

so i think that whatever bill is offered and whether it's a bipartisan bill, which i hope it is bipartisan, whatever gets offered -- and i'm not quite sure at the moment who's going to be the lead sponsor. i have looked at the legislation offered by the two senators i mentioned before. but however it comes down -- and sometimes here in the senate things can change on you for various rngs. but however it comes down, i hope we will not only consider but will pass legislation that will protect our active duty men and women and our reserve component and the coast guard. we can't forget the for-profit guard -- we continent forget the coast guard. they soirve country just like everybody else and they deserve to be included in this. and also we need to give the secretary of defense the discretion so that he can run his department in a way that won't weaken us. he need needs that discretion. whatever that may mean. again, we may have some differences on the details and one senator may thing one thing. but the bottom line, we need to give him enough discretion to make sure that during that time whe

i rise in support of this bill, the bill to fund our troops. the last congress failed to pass a budget and that's why we're here, that's why we're debating these c.r.'s. this continuing resolution is the right outcome, not only for the american people but for our military. this isn't a democratic or a republican issue. this is what's best for the american people and most importantly what's best for our troops. give them certainty, give them what they need to keep us safe and allow us to be here today with this debate. i thank you and i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized in place of the gentleman from washington. >> madam speaker, if the very distinguished chair of the committee wants to yield back we'll yield back as well. mr. moran: in the spirit of comity. i yield -- mr. rogers will close. mr. rogers: if the gentleman will yield, i have one other speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i recognize the gentleman fro

i rise in support of this bill, the bill to fund our tros. the last congress failed to pass a budget and that's why we're here, that's why we're debating these c.r.'s. this ctinuing resolution is the right outcome, not only for the american people but for our military. this isn't a democratic or a republan issue. this is what's best for the american people and most iortantly what's best for our troops. give them certainty, give them what ty need to keep us safe and allow us to be here today with this debate. i thank you and i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized in place of the gentleman from washington. >> madam speaker, if the very distinguished chair of e committee wants to yield back we'll yield back as well. mr. moran: in the spirit of comity. i yield -- mr. rogers will close. mr. rogers: if the gentleman will yield, i have one other speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i recognize the gentleman from arkansas

the other bill is an illegal bill. the other bill would make our founders roll over in their graves. this is what the bill they embedded no bug, no pay in -- no budget, no pay in. follow me. and i especially hope the young people listening to this debate will follow me, because you've learned how a bill becomes a law. it goes through a committee usually -- doesn't have to -- it goes to one house. they pass it. the other house passes it, so you get the house and the sena senate. and then it goes to the president. he either signs it or vetoes it. if he signs it, it's law. if it's vetoed, two-thirds can override him. guess what? they put no budget, no pay into a bill that says the following. if the senate has not acted by a date certain on h.r. 1 -- this horrible bill that i just talked to you about -- that bill will have been deemed to be the law. now it's a new deal. we deem. so in other words, i have 20 bills that i've introduced. today i deem them law. i have some great bills. one is a violence against children act, v

bill made the difference. it's government stepping in when it was needed and put 45,000 people across this world to work. and that's what government's about. it's there to be helpful. this isn't just an accounting office. it's not just a fiscal policy problem. because of my success in business, i never had to worry again about whether or not i could provide health care for my family. i never forgot what it was like to be without health care. and we need the health reform law because no american should ever have to make sacrifices to afford health care. americans are beginning to experience the benefits of this law enforcement why now -- benefits of this law. why now would we want to put our progress on hold? i agree. we have serious economic problems in our country, but we're not going to solve them by taking health care away from american women and families. don't take away this critical assistance for people who can't afford the care they need. if we have fiscal problems, if we have deficit problems, there a

bills. i did not go that far. if you think about republicans from a policy standpoint, the only policy leverage. that they have -- that will not get it to the senate and get it signed by the president. you have identified the most emotive issues. but whether it is health care, financial services reform, higher education reform, epa regulation, things that they're really care about, serious policy issues, their own money ability to impact that is to put a dent rider or amendment on a must-pass spending bill. at the end of the day, they can probably get some of what they want. i do not go so far as to said that the republicans should can see to the democrats that we will only pass clean spending bills. but to allow big symbolic issues to drown out this message that some people mentioned earlier, we have not made our case for our own success. we have cut spending for the first time maybe ever. but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the big budget, but it is the first time we have done it. a

describe how to pass a bill. not by one house deeming it but as our distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn, described, his daughter's school children and her class could tell you that you pass one house, you pass another house, it's signed by the president. but that seems to be missed by the makers of this resolution today. again mr. cly bush talked -- clyburn tked about the constitutional authority to bring this bill to the floor. it's truly a mysty how you can take an oath of office to protect the -- and defend the constitution of the united states, bring a bill to the floor in violence of that, and justify it actually. i have heard the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier, say that we had some visiting parliamentarians here who were watching this debate to see if america, congress can get its job done. please don't pay attention to this. what you see on the floor today is no example of democracy in action. it's silly. the republican leadership is asking its members to make a silly vot

i asked that the bill be agreed to and the senate agrees to vote on the passage of the bill. >> is there objection? >> mr. president, the republican leader. outstanding work during this difficult negotiation. you know, mr. president, we had an opportunity tonight to decide whether we wanted to repeat history or make history. had we chosen to repeat history, we would have are allowed a government shutdown. instead we decided to make history by implementing in the middle of this fiscal year as the majority leader's indicated substantial reductions in spending. now, these reductions, mr. president, are in the billions. once we get through this process by the end of this week, we will move on to a much larger discussion about how we saved trillions. by enacting hopeful on a bipartisan basis a budget that genuinely begins to get on top of this problem, and the problem, as we all know, is $14 trillion in debt and over $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities. the president's asked us to raise the debt ceiling and senate republicans and house republicans, and i hope many democrats as well, are goin

bill. the clerk: h.r. 1307, a bill to amend the ronald reagan centennial commission act to extend the termination date for the commission, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume, and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, h.r. 1308 was introduced by the gentleman from california, mr. gallegly, and is a straightforward bill to amend the ronald reagan centennial commission act by extending the commission's termination date as well as the commission's final report deadline. in june, 2009, president obama signed public la

not one jobs bill. in fact, the only bill that they have put on that has anything to do with jobs is one that destroys 700,000 jobs. so keep this in mind, american public. 14 weeks of g.o.p. leadership in the house and not one piece of legislation that would create a job, putting americans to work this year and next year. . that's a fact. now, another fact. where did the deficit come from? where did the deficit come from? in order to understand where wer we need to know where we've been. beginning wp ronald reagan, the budget was not balanced. ronald reagan at the end of his term, left for the american public, $1.4 trillion deficit in the years ahead. at the end of each year and therefore at the end of a president's term, the congressional budget office makes an estimate of what is going to happen over the next five to 10 years. and at the end of ronald reagan's term they said there would be a $1.4 trillion deficit going forward. george walker bush followed reagan and at the end of his administration, t

bill ayers in the spotlight. once again we'll play you his shout down with radio talk show host larry elder and get larry's reaction, coming up. >> sean: welcome back. we continue now with the final installment of my interview with donald trump. i spent more time than anybody in the media on the issue of reverend wright and bill ayers. he was asked one question, he's a guy in the neighborhood. we discovered he started his political career in bill ayers house. he gave speeches with him and sat onboards with him. >> acted like he hardly knew him. >> sean: his answer is he is some guy in the neighborhood. on 9/11 of all days he had that in "the new york times." media ignores it. reverend wright i was fortified by him he rode around listening to tapes of him. he's like family to me. of course ego thrown under the bus. there's a picture in that church magazine -- >> both of these guys hate obama because he dropped them. there's one thing, i'm like a loyalist. i have people that -- i try to be loyal. he's a very disloy

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1473, a bill making appropriations for the department of defense and other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 218, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, each will control 30 minutes. the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

ultimately, the bill passed out. that committee had been -- they had a number of members that resided entirely within santa clara county. going in, we have a feel for how that might turn out. the recommendation to the management here, and the city and county representatives, is that as this bill continues through the assembly and goes through appropriations, we need to jump ahead and start working the senate transportation committee, so they do not wait for that activity. that committee is not welcoming for northern california and has very few representatives, but does have knowledgeable chairman.

- "this bill

the bill and why senator reid in the senate supports the bill. and so let's focus on actual cuts in spending. we all profess that we want to cut back on the deficit for the year and for the ensuing years. the deficit this year, $1.4 trillion in just one year, largest in history, adding to a debt that exceeds all of our fears of some $14.2 trillion. we all say, let's cut back on spending. here's your chance. here's your opportunity. if you profess to be a fiscally responsible member of this house , you have a chance, an obligation, to vote for this bill. and support it. it's historic, we've never been here before. we've reached a pinnacle. and a great opportunity for us to show to the rest of the country that we're serious about controlling the free spending nature of this body. this is your chance. don't miss it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself a minute to respond. the gentleman from kentucky called this a historic bill. i think much more of this kind of history and we risk making our country solven

then along came bill clinton. bill clinton put in place in the first four years of his administration policies that would, if extended forward, deal with the receive it -- deficit, such things as pay-go a word that's common in washington but i'm sure out there in the great american public, people have no idea what pay-go is. pay-go is -- was the law during the clinton administration and it required that any bill passed by congress had to be paid for. with either higher taxes or cuts in some other program. in other words, could not create a deficit. could not add to the deficit. there were other programs put in place, part of which i was responsible for implementing, reinventing government. i was helping the -- i was the deputy secretary and we were told, you will reduce the expenditures of the department of superior and you'll continue to do the same things only do them better. effective and efficient government. we reduced the number of employees in the department of interior during those first four and a half or

yesterday senators john mccain and john kerry introduced a bill establishing an internet privacy bill of rights something that consumers and civil liberties organizations have been waiting for for a long time now this measure would create rules that would force internet companies to explain to users how they collect their data who's going to be able to view it and how they intend to keep it safe so for those companies wanting to get their hands on your info think of your name their e-mail address maybe even your credit card numbers they won't be able to do that without your individual consent and web companies would also have to offer users the ability to opt out of data collection and all tech giants like e bay microsoft intel and h.p. are all signed on privacy groups are saying that this bill isn't going far enough so let's figure out what the pros and the cons are here are the scotts the with me is technology reporter for the hill thanks so much for being here tonight now you know like i said this is something that i think has been a long time coming a lot of groups have been waiti

there is a reduction in the defense bill in this bill. for those of who you are concerned that it might have had an adverse effect on our nation's defense, it will not. we don't want to make very many more cuts in the defense bill because today we all know what the requirement is. there's discussion at the white house and with the secretary of defense who almost seem to disagree now that there should be more cuts, mo draconian cuts. you can't do that. you can't just pick out a number for defense out of the air. you can't roll the dice. you can't spin the wheel. you've got to make your funding and your investment in national defense based on what is the threat to this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to congressman mike walz, distinguished leader here in the house, from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkans