mr. tiahrt for their fine work. ey are agreeing to disagree on many of the key issues but worked hard at the subcommittee level. mr. speaker, the labor-h.h.s. spending bill, we will consider today, is an appropriations bill that involves a very significant level of funding. by now we all know how important it is to chairman obey to complete each of the spending bills by the end of july. it's almost a badge of courage for him to go into the august recess saying, i did my job. the house appropriations committee has completed its work. to some extent, i know how he feels. on june 30 of 2005, mr. obey and i celebrated the passage of all of the fiscal year 2006 spending bills with our bipartisan staff just across the hall from the house chamber. andford, each of those spending bills was considered on this floor under an open rule with unlimited opportunity for members of both parties to offer and debate amendments. today, the house is under different management and clearly, we're on a different path. in 2005, there were 2

mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this shall be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill if rising without further proceedings in recommittle and the motions to suspend the rules on h.res. 476. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 225. the nays are 195. the motion is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the question is on passage o

mr. tiahrt: mr.speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. tiahrt: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clirk will report the bill. the clerk: mr. tiahrt of kansas reports the bill back to the bill on appropriations as amended as follows. at the appropriate place in the bill -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: mr. speaker, i make a point of order of the motion to recommit with instructions because it includes legislation that is not in order under clause 2 of rule 21. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will complete the reading. the house will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. please take your conversations off the floor. please clear the aisles if you're having conversation. the clerk will read. the clerk: at the appropriate place in the bill, execute amendments numbered 1 through 22 pr

mr. tiahrt: whereas the gentleman from kansas, mr. tiahrt, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3288, transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act of 2010. whereas the said the gentleman's amendment would have been prohibited -- would have prohibited salaries and expenses from being paid to individuals who obligate money under the stimulus fhwa program for road signs that are placed at construction signs to alert motorists that the construction is being paid by the stimulus. whereas the amendment would have been in order under an open amendment process. but regrettably the democratic leadership has -- whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, and the democrat leadership and the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. obey, prevented the house from voted on my -- on this amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now, therefore, be it resolved that h.res. 669, the rule to accompany 3288 to be amended a to allow the gentleman f

mr. tiahrt. the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner.the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. and the gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman. five, as each of these members represents approximately 650,000 americans, approximately 25 million denied their right to be represented because the restrictive rules supported by the rule from the gentleman from wisconsin pleasure obey, failed to follow the precedents and procedures of the house. mr. obey was correct that a true representative democracy is impossible when 25,350,000 americans have their representative of congress shut out of the legislative process. seven, as a result of their restrictive rule implemented by the democratic majority, the house was not allowed to vote or debate issues such as an amendment that would reduce spend big 1.7%, saving taxpayers $2.9 million. an amendment to prohibit an eligible individual from receiving food stamps, an amendment to end taxpayer subsidies for procedures. an amendment to prevent federal employees from being paid to do union activities in their

mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, on friday i offered an amendment in the appropriations committee that failed because every democrat voted against it. the amendment simply stated that members of congress and the administration should live by the laws they impose on the american people. specifically, if you vote for a government-run health insurance plan you should get a government-run health insurance plan. if it's good enough to impose health care rationing on the american people, it's certainly good enough for you. botts it's hypocritical to vote for a goift-run rationed health care plan that will be forced on everyone else -- government-run rationed health care plan that will be forced on everyone else and obtaining a private health care plan yourself. kansans are upset about the possibility that they're forced on a rationed public health care plan by this congress. they believe if it's not good enough for the people who vote for it, it's not good enough for them. mr. speaker, it's time for us to reform h

mr. tiahrt or anybody else relative to the use of taxpayer funds for abortions in the district of columbia. and that's why they voted no. now, like-wise, we have discussed, mr. obey's discussed, mr. dingell's discussed, i discussed the fact that mr. serrano was gracious enough to accept an amendment that dealt with the 250,000 people about to lose their jobs at auto dealerships across the country. for 14 years i chafed at the fact that appropriators were legislating on authorization bills. i love it. i think it's a wonderful process. i hope it continues. having said that, the vote that members are going to take in a couple of hours, nobody is going to know where they stand on the car dealers and nobody is going to know where they stand on the issue of abortion. if you vote yes on the bill, you can call up and say, hey, i was with you, auto dealers, but the people that don't think the taxpayer funds should be used for abortion are going to be concerned about that vote. if you don't vote no on the bill, you are not going to have difficulty with the fact that taxpayer funds should be used for