mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: it is interesting we have heard of justice brandeis' commitment to the first amendment. one can only wonder what he would think of the current state of interpretation of the first amendment where, unfortunately, it appears we give greater protection to nude dancing than political speech. one would hope that the supreme court as it -- as we anticipate its decision in the most recent challenge to aspect spekts of mccain-feingold might listen to some of the interpretations and wisdom of louis brandeis with respect to the essence of the first amendment. one would hope that we would once again regain the notion that protection of political speech is at the forefront of the first amendment not an after thought to the -- afterthought to the first amendment. when we have gone so far as to have someone representing the solicitor general of the united states responding to a question in the supreme court saying in response to the

mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. gohmert: yes. mr. lungren: in other words, the bill anticipates a loss of jobs and creates a specific fund to reimburse people or to subsubsidize people or in some way help those people who lose their -- subsidize people or in some way help those people who lose their jobs on behalf of the bill? mr. gohmert: yes. it will raise costs for everything else in order to create the fund to pay the people that lose the jobs as a result of the bill. and there's other good news in there for members of congress that voted for the bill, and it seemed a little self-serving to be there. and people said that it wouldn't cost jobs didn't read the bill. but whoever staff member wrote that bill knew people would lose their jobs. the fund is created to provide relocation allowances for those who lose their job to try to help them move to where the jobs are going. unfortunately, it will not provide money for you to go to china, india, argentina, the places where the jobs will really be sent if this bill becomes law. but th

mr. lungren, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: pursuant -- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill and yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i'm grateful to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren who has worked tirelessly on this issue. this legislation will help to bolster the effectiveness and morale of the federal air marshal servicemark of whom i visited with over my tenure as a member of the homeland security committee. as my -- in my position as chairwoman of the subcommittee on infrastructure protection, i have worked to keep our modes of transportation secure and ensure that departments of the -- that members of the department of homeland security are treated fairly and given the op

mr. lungren: thank you very much, madam chair. this is a prime example of good intentions resulting in bad policy. my area is one of the areas hit as badly as any with respect to foreclosures. we have not cleared the market yet. we are in deep, deep shape. and the last thing we need is to increase the level of uncertainty within the mortgage market, and that's what this does. it may be limited by its terms, but if we do it now we can do it again. some people may ask, why would we not allow cramdown for residential housing? the supreme court justice stevens, looking at this with a case in previous years, said the favorable treatment of residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market. that is why this exists in the bankruptcy code today. precisely because it allows more people access to purchasing homes and premiums are not as high as they otherwise would be. precisely because you cannot allow cramdown in bankruptcy proceedings now. that's the sole substance of the reason why we have

mr. lungren: thank you very much, madam chair. this is a prime example of good intentions resulting in bad policy. my area is one of the areas hit as badly as any with respect to foreclosures. we have not cleared the market yet. we are in deep, deep shape. and the last thing we need is to increase the level of uncertainty within the mortgage market, and that's what this does. it may be limited by its terms, but if we do it now we can do it again. some people may ask, why would we not allow cramdown for residential housing? the supreme court justice stevens, looking at this with a case in previous years, said the favorable treatment of residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market. that is why this exists in the bankruptcy code today. precisely because it allows more people access to purchasing homes and premiums are not as high as they otherwise would be. precisely because you cannot allow cramdown in bankruptcy proceedings now. that's the sole substance of the reason why we have

mr. lungren for his efforts on this measure and yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i wish to thank mr. lungren, too, for his cooperation in this hearing and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3224. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 35, expressing the sense of the house of representatives that congress should provide increased federal funding for continued type 1 diabetes research. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house reso

mr. lungren: madam speaker, yesterday was a historic day. it will be a day which lives in economic infamy. the e.p.a. administer yesterday announced that endangerment finding. yes, co-2 is now a pollutant. that means everyone in this chamber, anyone out there who might be hearing us, you are now polluters. with every breath you take you emit co-2. this was never ever conceived by congress when it passed the clean air act. we now have a situation in which administrators are going to effectively control the entire economy and the way in which we live and the way in which we breathe. this is not the idea of freedom. this is in fact not an endangerment finding about clean air. this is an endangerment finding about our freedom. our freedom took a vicious blow yesterday, and we as representatives of our people must act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: good morning, madam speaker. i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordere