mr. heller said. mr. speaker, let's use that as our model, which will be substantially better than what is being put before us today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: can you tell me the remaining time for both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 14 minutes. the gentlelady from north carolina has 10 1/2. mr. hastings: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, my friend and colleague from the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. mr. speaker, all i can say is it's about time. and to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it's a shame that it's taken this long. for seven weeks millions of americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own have worried about how the

mr. heller: thank you. we can go home having done the responsible thing and knowing that we have helped all americans. most importantly, it's long past time for congress to finally get serious about creating jobs. my constituents want pay checks, not unemployment checks. they want startups, not bailouts. and they want handups, not handouts. americans are disappointed with the government that has grown so big, promised so much yet has delivered so little. and i yield back the balance. mr. levin: i yield -- the speaker pro tempore: members will suspend. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is a violation of the rules of the house. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you

mr. heller. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for four minutes. mr. heller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding time. the answer to his statement is it's absolutely correct. this can be paid for. i come from a state, ste of nevada, that has 14.2% unemployment. these are very, very tough times. during the hearings i submitted legislation that would actually pay for this piece of legislation. we can pay for it. it's not that the majority can't pay for it. it's that they don't want to pay for it. in fact, if you take a look at november, 2009, with the facing the unemployment insurance extension bill, back then in 2009 it was fully paid for and the administration itself came out and supported a bill that was paid for. and at the time unemployment was higher than it is today nationwide. don't tell me the administration doesn't think this ought to be paid for. if they wanted to pay for it, 9.8%, why don't they want to pay for it today? i

mr. heller. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for four minutes. mr. heller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding time. the answer to his statement is it's absolutely correct. this can be paid for. i come from a state, state of nevada, that has 14.2% unemployment. these are very, very tough times. during the hearings i submitted legislation that would actually pay for this piece of legislation. we can pay for it. it's not that the majority can't pay for it. it's that they don't want to pay for it. in fact, if you take a look at november, 2009, with the facing the unemployment insurance extension bill, back then in 2009 it was fully paid for and the administration itself came out and supported a bill that was paid for. and at the time unemployment was higher than it is today nationwide. don't tell me the administration doesn't think this ought to be paid for. if they wanted to pay for it, 9.8%, why don't they want to pay for it today?

mr. heller from inform neff offered a republican amendment in the nature of a substitute which was not made in order by a vote of 2/7. this fiscally responsible alternative would have extended unemployment insurance, cobra, and the current property guidelines until september 25, and paid for it with unused funds from the failed stimulus bill. again the bill before us extends federal unemployment benefits only through november 2010 and is not paid for. adding a $34 price tag to our $13 trillion debt. democrats claim that their bill satisfies their pay-go requirements. by declaring its spending an emergency. but that simply an excuse for not paying for it. let me tell you what the -- how an emergency is defined in their rules. in general the criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change meets an emergency designation include, one, necessary essential and vital. not merely beneficial. two, quickly coming into being and not building up over time. three, an urgent pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action. four, unforeseen or unanticipated an

mr. olson? >> read the heller case carefully. the opinion of even the dissenting judges, justice breir and others accepted the fact that the second amendment protected an individual right but went on to say it's all a matter of the scope of the right. you haven't gotten that commitment from solicitor general kagan. in other words, if she were to go on to the court with what we know about her now, she could be the most anti-gun justice on that court. >> i appreciate all your testimony here. i know you all have sincerely given us the best you can. this is a particularly difficult thing for a lot of us. you can't help but like elena kagan and you can't rep but recognize she is a scholar and she has a good sense of humor. she is a decent person. but i i remember -- it was hard for me to vote against sonia sotomayor, but her comments to us have not been lived up to with regard to this issue alone and there may be others, as well. the things we were so worried about turned out to be proper worries. so this s always a difficult thing fo

miskagan's answer that she is bound by heller provides us no assurance that as a justice she is bound by the second amendment as written by the frame rules. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. olson. now i'll give myself five minutes and then we'll call on senator session and senator hatch. my first question is to kim askue. the aba focused on the concerns raised by some critics that solicitor general kagan does not have experience as a judge. in fact, according to your report, the overwhelming view of those interviewed thought it was important to also have judges who have spent a number of years outside the judiciary. why do you believe broad legal experience outside the judicial branch would be beneficial to elena kagan if she is confirmed as a justice on the supreme court? >> thank you. the standing committee is reporting the information that we received from the many lawyers and judges that we interviewed as part of our peer review and so what we present to you we think is the overwhelming position that we obtain in talking about that issue. it's important to have former judges and it is also important to have those who have some other backg