i say vote against the substitute, vote for the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield an additional minute to the ranking member on the intelligence committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. hoekstra: i thank my colleague for yielding. but i felt i needed to respond as my name was brought up from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. the r.o.z.'s in this rule process regardless of the underlying bill will be part of the final package that moves through. what happens with the democrat base bill here is they undercut many of the things and put in a lot of restrictions that as congressman van hollen and i tried to craft a bill together, we wanted to make sure there was enough freedom for these programs to be successful. and the important thing here is can -- you can vote for the substitute. the r.o.s.'s become part of the program -- r.o.z.'s become part of the program when t

uand our underlying bill does that. i know what it means to have an industry facing these challenges but, clearly, the clal t challeo our nation to reduce the number of children who smo enan smoke o save lives. i urge our colleagues to reject the burr amendment. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, senator sessions, senator kyl and i are going to take a few moments here to discuss the pending supreme court nomination and the proceedings leading up to that. i've notified the democratic floor staff that it might slightliedly the 4:20 vote. i find that not objectionable on the other side. so i would just inform our colleagues that we're going to proceed here as if in morning business and i ask consent we proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: it will not cause much of a delay, if any, on the 4:20 vote i announce to our colleagues. senator ses

this underlying bill is very simple. it is bipartisan. over 50 members of the senate have cosponsored this in the last congress. it actual reduces the federal budget deficit by close to half a billion dollars. and as i indicated, it -- it should bear no controversy at all. it is simply the development of a public-private partnership that will begin to market our country as most other countries are doing in order to attract destination international tourism to our country. all the other countries are doing this. if you watch the golf tournament today, the u.s. open, in the middle of the golf tournament they break to a commercial. it's the country of turkey saying, come to turky, come and visit the wonders of turkey. well, good for turkey. they're you will there trying to promote international tourism. but the same is true with france and with india and japan, great britain, so many other countries. why are they doing that? they're doing it because it is unbelievably job creating to have international tourism come to your country. on averag

president, the underlying bill, h.r. 1256, contains no cessation program. even though the bill requires the manufacturers to pay up t to $700 million a year, it contains no cessation program. again, how can you call this a public health bill? how can you suggest that this is going to reduce the death or disease. how can you make the claim that you're going to reduce youth usage when there's no commitment, no requirement to cessation? secondly, our amendment assists current smokers who are unable and unwilling to quit by acknowledging a continuum of risk of tobacco products. exactly what i showed you here. more specifically our amendment does not preclude reduced products from entering the marketplace. this piece here, they like this end, we pull this, the 90%, to less harmful products. because the objective in this bill should be to reduce death an disease. -- and disease. there's a great debate under way in the academic world on tobacco control. some advocate abolishment of tobacco. straight abolishment is hard to achieve and can bring many unintended cons

i rise to oppose the rule and underlying bill. the legislation we are set to consider today is the latest demonstration of washington's failure to understand how the middle class lives in these difficult economic times. try, for instance, to explain the logic in a 23% increase to overseas foreign service officers to workers in my district who are either taking pay cuts or losing benefits. or ask the families in my district who are doing their best to make ends meet when washington spends money it does not have to fund these salary increases. it's not just the disconnect on spending that's cause for concern. in the last month alone gas prices in my district have been up over 41 cents. these are resources coming out of individuals who are struggling in my district to make ends meet. now democratic leaders are pushing for an ambitious national cap and trade tax. this tax will cost between $200 and $300 a month for struggling families on a new energy tax. this affects not only families but small businesses, ranchers, farmers, i can't

but there's really a big underlying difference between our approach and the approach of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. that is trusting the american people. you give the american people -- if we give the american people the right incentives, they'll make the right decisions. but that's not what we have on the floor today. what we have on the floor today is typical big government. and a fight we have between the two sides of the aisle really boils down to one word. it boils down to freedom. the freedom to allow the american people to live their lives without all of these extra taxes and all this bureaucracy. i would just say to my colleagues, i did my best to try to get through the 300-page amendment that was filed at 3:09 in the morning. obviously somebody knew this was coming. but it wasn't filed until 3:09 this morning. this is not the way we should be doing legislation. the american people expect more of us and you know what? they deserve a lot more from us. so i would say to my colleagues, let's not go down this path. increasing taxes on every single american. let's

the finance committee jurisdictional issue which is in the underlying body. so -- >> don't show that to them. >> it's not like we're plowing new ground. >> mr. chairman, could i also add for the people that are going to look at this, the base bill, the underlying bill, on page 203, 204 and 602, there are references to the social security act. on pages 35, 101, 103, 107, 209 and possibly 210, the internal revenue code. clearly, these are areas that on the face would be the jurisdiction of the finance committee so if we're going to selectively choose which members get to participate in it, i think it's a little unfair to senator isakson. >> the lastx we return to live coverage here on c-span 3. >> you get a three option check in the state of georgia as to what you want end of life done and in many places, it has been established through a court precedent which is why the language in there refers to whether statutory or as recognized by the courts of the state. so i certainly, i'm trying to save a cost burden on medicare and improve the quality of life to the in

it is the underlying issue that needs to be addressed. my first point was made by somebody in the audience. i sat through the first session and someone got up and said it is not saving money, it is spending money smarter. it is not a matter of me saying to a provider i gave you $100 yesterday, $68 today, it is really i gave you $100 yesterday, i will give you $100 today. if we can have measurable improvements in your patient population. sometimes when we say we will address costs, the most immediate thing is we are going toslash the budget. we need to look at doing things smarter and more efficiently, administratively. there are a lot of things that health plans do, to drive the community in seen in terms of dealing with claims and administrative problems. we need to deal with that. as taxpayers, we have to recognize, the solution is not going to be cheap. there has to be a willingness to dedicate more resources. employers understand at as well. one of the great things about what massachusetts did, whether you agree with the model they se

a minimum that do no harm and the final amendment was amendment number four which replaces the underlying language with language that would simplify the administration of health care. so this number six is to make sure we do no harm any if there's still a word, there's something that's different there and we need to talk about that, but i think that six is important to keep the underlying provisions from backfiring and actually adding red tape and with the modifications, the underlying provisions might slow the process with the department of health and human services and if the language is enacted without my amendments and business operations would be interrupted and conversion costs could be astronomical. so i think cms has confirmed that this language that i'm trying to modify would throw a wrench in the works and so i was just trying to come up with language that would make sure that we do no harm and then in amendment number four i have what i think is some additional simplification, and i'm pleased that that was recognized because there is some burdensome and time-consuming processes

the underlying issue that if there is not affordable coverage of their four you requiring you too have coverage is irrelevant. even in massachusetts is a cohort two cannot get coverage because of the economics. i think a mandate is an important component of the overall health care reform package. but again come if we cannot address the underlying economics it does not really matter what other kinds of things we have. we will not get the deal done. >> writes. right. that leads the group who supports having a government auction saying that plan will be less expensive and therefore bring everyone in. it is a debate obviously. but the issue of having our country's ordering, whatever the word, every 21 year-old, a young man or young lady that drives a motorcycle says i don't want to have coverage then has an accident which cost one or $2 million and other question is, of who pays for that? >> i was just thinking what tom was saying and sitting here right now, if we could get 97%, i would take at. [laughter] that sounds pretty good. if i can come i have a question for these folks. myself whi

the finance committee jurisdictional issue which is in the underlying body. so -- >> don't show that to them. >> it's not like we're plowing new ground. >> mr. chairman, could i also add for the people that are going to look at this, the base bill, the underlying bill, on page 203, 204 and 602, there are references to the social security act. on pages 35, 101, 103, 107, 209 and possibly 210, the internal revenue code. clearly, these are areas that on the face would be the jurisdiction of the finance committee so if we're going to selectively choose which members get to participate in it, i think it's a little unfair to senator isakson. >> the last let's take a braque -- let's take a break and we will come back to it. >> there has to be made somewhere near here. -- there has to be somewhere near here. let me turn to my colleague from georgia for any comments on this latest proposal. >> mr. chairman, as i understand it, there has been a proposal to move this consideration to the long term care section in the legislation, which i was in the walk-through when we

a bill that is an appropriations bill, just like the underlying legislation. and yet, the chairwoman found that asking the appropriations chairman about the upcoming appropriations process during a hearing on an appropriations bill was inappropriate. i think that was unfortunate. please let me quote chairwoman slaughter's report from 2004. restrictive rules block dual-elected members of congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a manner that they believe is in the best interests of their constituents and the nation as a whole. they also blocked and i continue quoting, the full and fair airing of conflicting opinions. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the relevant parts of the chairwoman's report into the record the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. diaz-balart: if the rule was restrictive under the majority's definition in 2004, why is it not the same today? i would make this restrictive rule more unfortunate is that the house has a long tradition of allowing open rules on appropriations bills in order to's lou each member to offe

the underlying bill represents the tyranny and the intervention of the federal government. mr. forbes' amendment represents liberty for the american people. it's our choice. what will we choose today? will we choose liberty or will we choose tyranny? i choose mr. forbes' amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: madam speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. the ranking member of the energy and -- the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support of the forbes' amendment. this is not -- of the forbes amendment. the majority party which controls the rules committee ruled out of order and didn't make it in order on the floor either the republican leadership comprehensive substitute or the energy and commerce committee comprehensive substitute. so they did rule in order mr. forbes' substitute and i will guarantee you, this is better than the base bill. it doesn't wreck the economy. it does include and accoun

but the underlying bill with respect to tobacco is a very important bill. again i thank mr. polis from colorado for his leadership and his passionate commitment to the subject. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to thank the gentleman from virginia for bringing out another important issue that is no longer included in this bill and hopefully he and other of our colleagues can work to ensure that we have a competitive work force for our federal government. madam speaker, the tobacco is the deadliest product on the market today. it kills over 400,000 americans every year. despite that grim statistic, tobacco companies have enjoyed a great deal of influence over public policy. indeed, a privileged state. avoiding the appropriate oversight of their dangerous business. by giving the food and drug administration the authority to exercise their proper oversight duties, we strip big tobacco of of their special privileges and power. we owe consumers the same level of protection wit

the underlying bill is an important bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i plan to close debate if the gentleman -- i yield to my friend. mr. arcuri: i have one more speaker. mr. dreier: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i yield four minutes to the the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. sutton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. sutton: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from new york for his leadership on the rules committee and for the time. i rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. but as we prepare to send the war supplemental to president obama, i would be remiss not to express the deep concerns that i have about the bill not including an exit strategy for military operations in afghanistan. and while i support the supplemental, i am also strongly supporting representative mcgovern'

chairman, that stove pipe issue is exactly why we've written the underlying bill the way we have. for states to put together coherent plans that consolidate both issues and then those grants are awarded based on that. so we're addressing that here. >> i understand this. we're going to take money from the states and we're going to filter it up here and the states are going to tell us where they need to spend that money and we're going to decide whether or not we give it to them? >> the money doesn't come from the states, it comes from the taxpayers. >> of the states. >> of the communities. of the neighborhoods. in terms of the states committing streamlining plans. >> what was that, tom? >> i'm intrigued by this amendment. there's a couple of parts of it i'm intrigued by. and what senator murray just said, i'm trying to figure out. is it in this title that states shall or may or can submit a streamlining plan? i like that idea. >> it's a competitive process. so the states can, if they so desire, apply for these grants. doesn't require them to. >> no, i'm wondering about like in b, t

i strongly urge support for the rule and for the underlying bill. 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 florida. mr. diaz-balart: it's my privilege to yield three minutes to the distinguished republican whip, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman from florida. mr. speaker, today we are considering the rule for a bill to develop and deploy defensive capabilities for the protection of the american people, our stationed men and women and our allies. the rising threat from north korea and iran highlights why our national security strategy must include a comprehensive multilayered and robust missile defense program to protect our homeland. both of these rogue nations, mr. speaker, provocatively flaunt their growing capabilities with long-range missiles and nuclear programs. just last week we learned that north korea is planning to launch a missile towards the

important principle here which is not only that this has to do with the scope of the fisa law but the underlying constitutional issue that people like me, many people, believe that if the statute is that explicit under the third test, under justice jackson's test, that it is in fact unconstitutional for the president and illegal, of course, for the president to override the express will of the congress. >> yeah, as i said, i think i said contra invention of,

if you are an employer with the underlying cost structure it makes more sense to shift everybody to the government plan. that in turn shows a lot of cost back onto the commercial side because now we know with medicare and it medicaid with the reimbursement rates that cost is on the commercial side. rethink a government plan by the very nature is not as nimble or flexible in terms of recognizing medical advances and a new benefit design. you have a package that the government says this is what we will cover these other doctors you get to go to. i think in terms of a government plan, there is a lot of concerns it will become the dominant market player and we can what we have now that is working and not really help those folks who need access to affordable coverage. >> if it meant getting something past, but will the afl-cio go along with not having a government plan? >> i again, it is not coming it is the total package what we can achieve to cover everyone the delivery system will improve quality and better value for spending and bring down costs to affect the future trend that slows fami

the report observes that the basic methodology and economic assumptions underlying in the stress testare reasonable and conservative. the report goes on to identify logical and important criticisms of the test. the panel's finding that concerns me most is that it calls for increased transparency. i have long been an advocate for the highest levels of accountability and visibility in the vault -- in all aspects of the economic recovery. i've often said that in order for the obama administration to come out of this crisis, the public must have a sense of confidence, they must feel that they are a part, they must feel informed. time and time again the public has been asked to accept the notion that the stability of a global economy depended on the induction of the unparalleled sums of public funds into the private markets. correctly, this congress has asked that in return for our acceptance of the public rescue of private firms, the recipient companies exercise transparency in their spending enjoy a willingness to be accountable for the use of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. the washington

let me respond directly to the underlying issue. verizon did not collude with its competitors on setting prices for text messages. i believe the evidence shows any suggestion like that to be baseless. the evidence confirms the u.s. wireless industry is competitive in all its aspects. that meager through this with more detail. the tiny nature of this market makes any suggestion of collusion impossible. customers in this category send or receive only 21 texts per month. the other 99% are covered by a package bundles. in contrast, text users in bundles average almost 1000 texts per month. because of this increased usage the overall price has dropped. in december 2006 the average price was 3 cents per message. since then we have cut the average price to cent per message. i have provided some charts with my testimony, and they show there is a wide variation in the prices. verizon prepaid customers are charged 1 cent or 10 cents or 20 cents per message depending on the plan. at&t's customers pay 20 cents per message. sprint's customers pa

so what are the underlying forces that frame the century? let me begin with the first one which i think is critical which is the end of the population. everywhere in the world birthrates are collapsing. it is projected by the united nations population growth will go 100% in the past 50 years to only 50% by 2015 and by the end of the century, a 10% growth. to replace population, each woman it needs to have 2. one children and in most of europe, that number is 1.5, 1.six, 1.seven, and japan is similar. it is therefore at arithmetically certain that the population of of the leading countries we're looking at is going to decline dramatically as well as age but wants the baby boom has passed away, talking about me, when i am gone, the population decline will accelerate. nor is it likely to reverse an agricultural society or early industrial society having a child was profitable you send them to work at to the early age and when you retire they took care of you but today the single, if you talk about conspicuous consumption, nothing is more expens

security and the underlying property? so they flooded the markets with these things until it was summer in the neighborhood of $50 trillion worth of credit default swaps. that is a lot of money. you have day laborers who had no business buying $500,000 houses to could not possibly afford to make the mortgage payments. they were sold adjustable rate mortgages that are called arms. at very low rates and so they could go and and pay a few hundred dollars per month on their mortgage. these are recent arms as a after three or four years they began to reset and of the true value of what these loans were worth began to come to and the day laborer making maybe four or $500 per month signed -- suddenly had to pay several thousand dollars per month on his mortgage. of course, he could not pay as of the defaulted. the banks said we will foreclose on the loan and in certain jurisdictions it was necessary for the homeowner to drop off the keys privity said sorry, i cannot make my payments of the drop off the keys and before long whole

theme, we must not just focus on the characteristic of individual otc derivatives, but also the underlying process of financial innovation through which products are invented, introduced to the market place and diffused. the process itself, not just individual derivatives, have regulatory significance because of the time limitation is referred to two or three examples and only very briefly. first, the innovation process can lead to chaos by causing important market participants to make big mistakes. in an article published in 1993 in the yale law online entitled misunderstood derivatives, i argue that the particular characterricses of the modern financial innovation process will cause even the most sophisticated financial institutions to make big mistakes has to derivatives. second, in terms of the gap in information as to this innovation process between regulators and the regulated are extraordinary, that regulators may not even be aware of the existence of certain derivatives, much less how they are modeled or used, and so beginning in 1993, i have urged the creation of a centralized inf

s sea change could be brought to the palestinians but underlying all of this was the fact that a pollster who was the only real pollster within the palestinians was turning out poll after poll indicating fatah was going to wind. there did not seem to be a lot of risk for the israelis. they said we will support the election we'll make us look at -- look like good guys but the palestinians will show they should choose the less violent of the factions. we continue to see, this will happen, taub will win by a large margin the night of the election fatah members were driving around in trucks shooting into the air celebrating their victory but the following morning it was hamas going around. the zoo explanations for the way the polls showed out. one, you can read this in the book on hamas that they deliberately tried to derail the process but wanted to tell the pollsters that its members are actually voting for for taub but they were trying to obfuscate what the actual pull or election results would be part of the other is that schakowsky himself was trying to undermine the electoral process. t

first of all, one of the points that underlie your question -- and it is absolutely correct -- is that for many families -- and i am even talking of people who have health insurance through their job, because they are paying for their premiums on a monthly basis, they are paying out-of-pocket costs, many of those families, health care costs have far exceeded income growth. we know premiums have grown something like three times the rate of wages over the past nine years. so the caller is on to something. as part of our plan, we do subsidize health care for low- income folks through the private plan or the public plan. we subsidize their coverage. but i think what is most important is that it is not just low income people, it is middle income people and even higher income people who are struggling with these unsustainable costs. now, if we accomplish the goal we set out -- and by the way, private industry has set out as well -- to take a point and have all the growth rate of health care costs over the next few decades -- let me be clear, a point and a half off the rate of growth, middle

first, the fee for service payment structure will underlie, say particularly if we use a bundle payment approach, a per episode approach, will underlie, to sarah palin operate what the bundled payment rates will be, but also realistically, for years, i suspect, our efforts to pursue broader units of payments are going to be blends of fee for service with the broader payment unit, rather than going cold turkey and eliminating fee for service. so some of the early experience using broad every payment units, sometimes puts providers if a bind. because the incentives to reduce the cost per episode may involve disproportionate reduction of the most profitable services and that really undermines provider's interest or ability to pursue these changes. so there are initial steps being discussed by congress now as part of health reef form, such as incentives to reduce hospital readmissions, bund i willing post-acute care into the inpatient drg's, post acute care would be care in nursing homes, home care, rehabilitation facilities. and using a supplemental capitation payment for medical home serv

i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 2487. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays e requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. adoption of house resolution 545 by the yeas and nays, ordering the previous question on house resolution 544 by the yeas and nays, adoption of house resolution 544 if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15

report through classification review, are not congressman plift -- complicit or involved in the underlying case? >> i think, as i testified earlier, it is our hope to release as complete a report as we can. and one of the things that i think we want to do is declassify as much of this report as we can, so that when people read it, either in this body or the general public, they will have a full feeling for what it is our lawyers in the office of personal responsibility dealt with and what is the basis for the conclusions we reach. so we will be pushing, as i said, to declassify as much of this report as we can, so that the american people will have a real sense of what it is that drove the conclusions that we reach. >> i appreciate that, but it doesn't address the questions of whatever assurances you got from the c.i.a. that in the discharge of their either substantive comment or classification review roles that the people involved in that, you can assure us, actually had clean hands with respect to this program and pr giving legitimate untainted, unbiased, unimplicated advice. >> i don't

effect of delaying the report through classfication review are not complicit or involved in the underlying conduct? have you got essentially a clean scrub of those at the c.i.a. who are involved in those processes to ensure they are not tainted by the program that is the subject of the report? >> i think i testified earlier, it is our hope to release as complete a report as we can. one of the things that i think we want to do is declassify as much of this report as we can so in this body or the general public they'll have a full feeling for what it is our lawyers and the office of personal responsibility dealt with and what is the basis for the conclusion that is they reached. and we'll be be pushing as i said to declassify oose much of this report as we -- declassify as much of this report as we can so the american people have a real sense of what it is that drove the conclusions that we reached. >> i appreciate that but it doesn't address the question of whatever assurances you got from the c.i.a. that in the discharge of either there substantive comment or classification review roles th

my underlying question is, who is the we first of all, and the extent to which authority already exists either at the sec or the fed to do some of this under existing statutes, or whether there are specific things that this committee and congress must do to change the law to address these issues. >> thank you. perhaps in the fourth i did not use-- our words well because i think they are actually different. i think on the issue of golden parachutes and supplemental retirement packages we were not coming with a particular legislative or even regulatory proposal. we really were in a sense trying to shine a spotlight on the practice that we think-- >> do we in that case being the treasury? >> we are trying to suggest that based on our refute, this is a practice that there are practices on the supplemental retirement accounts, excessive retirement accounts for executives in golden parachutes, they shareholders and management should reexamine and there may be times they are appropriate but there seems to be increasing evidence that they have become more-- >> let me go to a second question. >>

so we're going to have to build up our underlying grid. that being said, ultimately, if congress you know, gives us the mandates and the group of states decide that the best thing to do would be a 765 grid overlay, then we're going to need to accommodate that. but i think there are better ways to do it. the one size fits all will likely be in my estimation, probably oversized and not cost-effective. the one way in which i think about a 765 grid overlay, is you've got somebody with a hose on one side of a swimming pool and he's got to get the water to the other side of the swimming pool. there's a strain at the other side of the swimming pool. there's two ways, two options he's got. one, he can extend the hose or the second option is, he fills up the swimming pool. and the 765 grid overlay is more akin to filling up the swimming pool than extending the hose. i think there are better ways to do it than one size fits all. bottom line is, the primary message is, we need to do the calculus, we can figure this out. a tailor-made answer is better

the underlying legislation contains common sense provisions to ensure we're making the most use of our taxpayer funds in our diplomatic mission. there are a wide variety of opinions about how effective our diplomatic provisions have been and we appreciate the men and women in the diplomatic core. we can do -- diplomatic corps. we can do better. this will allow the state department and usaid to be more efficient in their speing and reduce due public kative efforts. dupe licktive efforts. it also includes a quad renall review of our plan for u.s. diplomacy, just like the defense department does every four years. this to me is exactly what we should be doing in this bill as we begin a new way of looking at our diplomatic efforts. i appreciate the gentlewoman's effort but i think this is fundamentally a crucial part of this piece of legislation. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noe

you've got to make sure that the underlying system is built up to accept that. in wisconsin, as both you and i have noted we've spent billions of dollars at this point in time designing a specific kind of system. american transmission system has defined a 45k system if there's a 74 five overlay built into wisconsin, it's essentially going to mess up our very deliberate 345kv design so we're going to have to build up our underlying grid. that being said, you know, that ultimately if congress, you know, give us the mandates and the group of states decide that the best thing to do would be 765 grid overlay then we're going to need to accommodate that i think there are better ways to do that. the one size fits all will likely be in my estimation probably oversized and not cost-effective, you know, the one way in which i think about a 765 grid overlay is you've got somebody with a hose on one side of the swimming pool and he's got to get the water to the other side of the swimming pool. there's a drain on the other side of the swimming pool and there's two options he

in fact, not only does the underlying bill and the manager's amendment remain silent on the u.n.'s misuse of american taxpayer funds for activities that undermine u.s. interests, but an amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana, again, mr. burton, which sought to prevent u.s. taxpayer dollars from paying for the legal fees of corrupt u.n. officials was rejected at rules and will not be considered today. because, mr. chairman, the u.n. has decided to pay the legal fees, possibly almost $900,000 of savan who ran the u.n.'s corrupt, disastrous oil-for-food program which was supposed to help innocent iraqis but instead was exploited by saddam's regime. u.s. state prosecutors have charged him with bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. but this bill before us does nothing to protect taxpayer dollars from bank rolling and rewarding corruption at the u.n. the underlying bill also helps foster the culture of corruption at the united nations by failing to leverage u.s. contributions to the u.n. development program, undp, until it accepts the jurisdiction of the u.n. ethics offi

so that's something to watch because that's sort of an underlying, overarching theme with respect to the racial discrimination cases. you asked about a conservative court, and linda mentioned this, the number of dissenting votes. it's true with respect to the number of dissenting opinions to. the four liberal members wrote dissenting opinions 50 times, and the five so-called conservative justices wrote dissenting opinions less than half of that, 23 times. so there's something that's, that's reflective of how conservative it is. people can argue about particular cases, but certainly in terms of the outcome there's quite a disparate allocation there. now, preemption that you've been waiting for so much. the court had three preemption cases, and it really is important because it has to do with the allocation of government power between the federal government and congress and the agencies of the federal government and the states. the three cases wereal try v. good, and cuomo vs. clearinghouse. that's one of those three cases that's going to be coming down on monday, so we don't know much

dealing with the underlying cost of health care is one of them. figuring out how you're going to pay for all this is one. and the other three big issue obviously is of the government plan, and our concerns about a government plan are the president says and everyone says if you are happy with the health care you have now, you get to keep it. we're not going to blow up the current system that we have. in fact, most people who have insurance habit through their employer. most people who have insurance coverage are happy with it. it's not perfect. there are frustrations. there are a lot of folks you don't have coverage that we need to get access, but i think the central theme needs to be let's not destroy what we have in order to fix the overall problem. with the government plan, in essence what you are doing is over timeshifting people into that plan. a government plan because of the breadth and depth of it basically can dominate the market. if you look at, for example, the kennedy bill that just got introduced, they are looking at, say medicare rate

thank you for the inclusion of this amendment with regard to israel and the underlying bill. i'd like to speak for that minute then with regard to one of our strongest allies in the middle east and that is the state of israel. i'm thankful for the strong relationship that we have, that our two countries share a lot in common, that we fought for peace and freedom. we both continue to pursue liberty despite ongoing opposition. we both face many common enemies. now, throughout my time in congress i've been a strong supporter of israel's right to exist. and when you think about it, it's even disturbing that we have to come here and talk about it in terms of such as that. but the truth of the matter is there are few peoples on earth where more of the crosshairs than israel. not even the united nations can be called to talk about israel. israel has remained a shining beacon of democracy in a dark part of the world. standing with the united states against the threat of islamic extremism. and we must be unwavering in our continued support. so the united states should continue to work

i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i would now like to yield five minutes to my colleague from idaho, mr. simpson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i come to this side of the well because i fear the distance between us has grown so great we can no longer hear each other from the chasm that divides us. it's time to stop talking at each other and start listening to one another. when i first read this rule, i wasn't so much angry as i was deeply saddened. i was saddened by what we have allowed this institution to deinvolve into. little more than a third world dictatorship. and we are all to blame because we have all allowed this to happen. we can point fingers at one another add nazz yam, claiming we did this to you, you did that to us, etc., etc. unfortunately, pointing fingers has never solved a problem. i was also saddened because the rules committee had it with

this is more timely than what is in the underlying bill. and it seeks to address immediate as well as evolving dynamics. the republican substitute relies on the president's leadership and commitment in providing the strategy and implement plan to the congress but does require that plan to include a description of how the u.s. assistance will be used in order to achieve our u.s. foreign policy objectives. what does that include? enhancing stable democratic governance, making sure that we have economic growth, developing pakistani counterinsurgency capabilities, success in shutting down safe havens for extremists, improving the capacity and the capability of pakistan to hold and build areas cleared of insurgents to prevent their return, and developing and strengthening mechanism for pakistan-afghanistan cooperation for they can not be separated. the substitute also requires that the report include a detailed financial plan of the resources, of the programming, of the management of u.s. assistance to pakistan and the criteria used to determine

harman: i rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill and commend chairman skelton and ranking member mckeon for moving another unanimous bipartisan authorization bill out of their committee. as a former member of the house armed services committee, i admire the bipartisan way in which the committee operates. my aerospace district is thankful, too. thanks to susan davis and her staff for working with me on an issue of paramount importance, the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military. mr. speaker, the mathis shocking. women who serve in the u.s. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in iraq. only 317 out of the 2,763 subjects investigated during fiscal year 2008 were referred to courts marshall. that is 11%, a figure below prosecution rates where 40% arrested for rape are prosecuted. d.o.d. must close the gaps and remove obstacles to legal enforcement. effective investigation and prosecution are the keys to turning this epidemic around by drawing bright red lines around unacceptable conduct. this bill has language that i o

i rise in opposition to this lockdown rule and the underlying legislation which, if passed, the "wall street journal" correctly notes will become the biggest tax in american history. after limited committee hearings and only one markup on this 1,200-plus page bill the negotiation that is have brought this bill to the floor have completely excluded republicans and ignored our good ideas on how to stop the most economically devastating and job killing parts of this bill. . for example, during the bill's brief deliberation during committee, republicans offered three commonsense amendments. one to suspend the program if gas prices hit $5 a gallon. one to suspend the program if electricity prices rise 10% over 2009. and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. but unfortunately the committee's democrats defeated them all. to make matters worse for the past two weeks despite numerous contrary promises to our democratic colleagues and to the american people, speaker pelosi and her hand picked lieutenants on the rules committee have limited open debate and once again here on

i have modified the -- i have an amendment that i will offer that modifies the underlying amendment. what it does is it returns to present law. it returns it to the present 20%. leave it where it is. but then working with senator greg's staff, we've agreed that our staff's -- any other interested offices, we'll see if we can't come to some type of agreement on these issues and the others that we have identified in section "b" of my amendment. if that's possible, we can incorporate that agreement in title 1 of the bill, which is the coverage section, by the way, of the bill. and where it really belongs. and, if not, then we'll have to offer maybe competing amendments at that time when we get the title one. i hate to put another burden on you, jeff. but this really is in the coverage -- kind of the coverage area. so is that okay? >> that's fine. if i can just briefly respond to your point. we have to get to the minutia of managing the wellness program. i think that would be -- that's not necessary. basically what drives this is the market. i mean, the whole purpose of having the wellne

i urge my colleagues to support both this amendment and the underlying bill. i thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. claiming time in opposition, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for his helpful and constructive amendment and i rise in support of this amendment and i had the opportunity to travel to these areas with the gentleman a few years back. madam chair, the congress has recognized the debt owed to iraqi and afghans who work at great personal risk in support of our troops and responded by creating two special immigrant visas, s.i.v. programs. one, an s.i.v. program for iraqi and afghani translators and interpreters and, a second s.i.v. program for contractors and their families along with providing refugee resettlement benefits. hour, as of 2008 report by the state department inspector general stated, the current process resulted in applicants receiving s.i.v.'s w

but michael is saying this is basically an underlying tension in our culture that needs to be sort of, it's cathartic when that happens and people sort of congratulate themselves and say we are dealing with race relations because we ostracized this particular media figure for doing something. it's really just a scapegoating and we are not dealing with the underlying issues in our culture. >> who is michael awkward? >> is a professor at the university of michigan. he is a feminist, a black scholar, a fan of don imus' show. that looks at how he personally sort of worked through how to react to that and why was it such a big deal. and you know how could he start reconcile being a fan of the show and also sort of with his problems with american culture. how do people, when people say things like this, in one context and not in another, why is it considered over the line, why is it considered over the line for don imus and not other aspects of culture. >> you have one other title, never touch a cook, from academic press. can you tell me about this? >> absolutely. we have published this pub

but then if you look further underlying that, mr. speaker, what you find is that the green jobs are really a pass-through of taxpayer money into the system and then as payroll for these so-called green jobs. they are not a direct result of an exponential growth of a healthy economy or healthy oil and gas industry. so as we move into this debate and i understand it's being pushed pretty hard right now, we've got to decide are we going to continue to put more taxes on our sit zens in the way of higher utility bills -- citizens in the way of higher utility bills which will affect the poor and those on a fixed income of over $3,000 a year of electrical bills or are we going to see manufacturing have to leave this country and go overseas because it can no longer compete with the higher energy cost? what is really the question here, how are we going to have more revenue into our treasury by killing off jobs? so i don't think this any longer a theoretical discussion. i think we are talking about real people and real jobs. and all we have to