tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 16, 2009 10:00am-12:59pm EDT
you live coverage of the u.s. house this morning. . [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 representatives.]
the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend elizabeth handily, abiding savior, lutheran church, cameron, texas. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace, we give you thanks for this new day. you bless the whole human family with your sustaining love. open the hearts for the ones who gather here as they make decisions for our nation. stirring them wisdom, understand, compassion and discernment. bind them together in the common pursuit of justice and peace for your people. give them a courage to have a voice for those that have no voice and hope to those in need.
renew the hearts of your people, o god, and move us to trust in you. bless, o lord, those who offer their service to others and grant us the grace to live in your never-failing love. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announcing to the chamber her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from new jersey, congressman sires. mr. sires: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from texas, congressman hensarling, is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: madam speaker,
above your chair are inscribed the words, in god we trust. there's nothing more important that we in congress do each day than seek his wisdom, guidance and blessing upon our deliberations. i am both grateful and proud that today my friend, pastor elizabeth hanley, sought those gifts on our behalf. pastor hanley, known as pastor liz, has led the abiding savior lutheran church in cameron, texas, since 2002. she's a lifelong lutheran, a fifth generation texan and just like my wife, a baylor bare bexar. i know through the fact that through her love of jesus christ, she nurtures the youth of her congregation. she cares for the elderly, and she inspires all by her words of grace through faith. hope and unity are in abundance at abiding savior, madam speaker. pastor liz is truly deserving of the words, well done, good
and faithful servant. i thank pastor hanley for being here today and for leading our invocation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 509, an act to authorize a major medical facility project at the department of veterans' affairs medical center washington, and for other purposes, in which the concurrence of the house has requested. the speaker: thank you. the chair will entertain up to 10 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. kennedy: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'd like to thank you, speaker pelosi, for bringing to the floor of this house a piece of sweeping health care legislation, the
likes of which we haven't seen in over 60 years since the congress passed the medicare legislation. madam speaker, i want to thank you because it's about time the american people had an opportunity to have health care for all. irrespective of preexisting conditions. madam speaker, i want to thank you on behalf of the millions of americans who suffer from mental illness. because health insurance companies do not acknowledge that the brain is part of the body, that there is such a thing as alcoholism and addiction in this country. madam speaker, thanks to your leadership, we passed the paul wellstone-pete domenici mental health legislation last year. in this legislation there is no discrimination against those with mental illness. and in each and every one of the health care plans, there is absolute parity in health care coverage for those with mental illness. thank you, madam speaker, for this historic legislation. and i yield back the balance of
my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: "the new york times" newspaper had an article about ruth bader ginsberg. the most disturbing comment came in reference to abortion. in reference to row v. wade, the infamous supreme court case, she said this, quote, frankly i had thought at the time roe was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we don't want to have too many of, end quote. i cannot imagine any acceptable context and what a serious person could refer to populations that we don't want too many of. this way of thinking debases the value of human life. all people are created equal and deserve the most fundamental right to life no matter what race, religion or socioeconomic background. i'm shocked that a member of
the supreme court believes a compelling reason for the legality of abortion is because our society wants to reduce the growth of specific populations. justice ginsberg's comments are an asexual assault and insult to the values -- are an asought and insult to the values of american people. -- an assault and insult to the values of the american people. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. butterfield: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: now democrats are responding with comprehensive north carolina reform and we're hoping that our republican friends will join us as we overhaul the broken health care delivery system. health care reform will control spiraling costs. without reform the cost of health care for the average family of four is projected to rise $1,800 each year, and insurance companies will continue to control health care decisions. under our legislation, families
with health insurance will see lower costs, rate increases for preexisting conditions and gender or occupation will be eliminated. out-of-pocket expenses will be kept. children will be guaranteed affordable denter and hearing care. denials and insurance companies lifetime payment limits will be eliminated. we must answer the call of the american people by enacting health care reform. let's do it for the american people and let's do it for the american economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, half of the primary care physicians say they would like to leave the practice of medicine in three years. there's just too much cost and time involved from red tape by insurance companies and the government agencies. and that's before the government bureaucrats nationalize the whole system. also, their cost for malpractice insurance has
skyrocketed. the american medical association said more doctors are leaving the profession and being replaced by new doctors. doctors are just hanging up their stethoscopes and changing their line of scope. it costs about $200,000 to get through medical school. not one cent helps to pay off these college loans. and the administration wants doctors to even shoulder more of the cost of practicing medicine. it's no wonder they're choosing other professions and moving to jackson hole, wyoming. to make matters worse, no doctors are accepting medicare or medicaid patients because government reimbursement doesn't even cover the cost of the treatment. now, isn't that lovely? no doctors and more patients. mr. speaker, when we run out of doctors, what will we do, turn our health care system to government snake oil salesmen? and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise?
ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. edwards: we are on the -- we'll signal to all america that we are no longer a nation that tolerates 46 million uninsured and many millions of workers, people who work every day underinsured and facing luge out-of-pocket costs. now, today i want to emphasize the importance of including a robust public health insurance option with an establishment of provider network in the final health care reform bill. it will allow the public plan to give americans a real choice among insurance plans and from doctors, from the start, from the beginning. a public provider network will place a public plan on a level playing field with private plans, establishing real compe figures, real reform and lowering cost for americans. look, we have one chance to do health care reform, and it's today. and we have to ensure that we establish the strongest infrastructure to give success for the american people and to
give them coverage and care and lower costs. further, the congressional budget office says that a robust plan will save $91 billion for our country. we know the system is broken, and now we have a chance for a truly american solution to health care reform. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to discuss my strong concerns over this never ending spending by this congress. in tough economic times when folks across alabama and our nation are tightening their belts, congress is doing the exact opposite. just this week house democrats unveiled their new health reform plan which rings up a mind-boggling $1 trillion in spending in 10 years. while i agree that health insurance reform is important and congress should pay attention to affordable,
accessible health care, spending another $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars on a possible government takeover is not the answer. folks in my home state of alabama tell me congress is spending like drunken sailors and i agree. it's time for congress to sober up and stop borrowing and spending money we don't have. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. madam speaker, thank you for your leadership. just as we thought, when we began to make a historic march toward the civil rights of all americans for health care reform, we begin to hear noises, wrong noises, about how much we're spending. well, i will tell what you we're doing because we're not ashamed of addressing the concerns of americans. $100 billion a year to fix a $2.0 trillion problem. the fact that texas children are
uninsured, they he will be able to be insured like other children around america. 60 years americans have been waiting and waiting and waiting for health care reform. family costs are going up $1,800 a year. how many americans want to continue that? and every single president, including candidate mccain wanted health care reform. we're doing it the right way. we're going to provide for primary care doctors, we're going to invest $1 in fighting fraud and save $1.75. i want to you know this, mr. and mrs. america, we're going to take the big step not for ourselves but for you. health care reform not yesterday but today and forever because america needs it and they need it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. as work begins today on the 1,000-page and $1 trillion
health care bill, the congress budget office provided members with some troubling points yesterday. for example, supporters of this plan argue it's necessary to bring down costs. we need to do that. however, the c.b.o. admitted that the public plan would have essentially no impat on the long-term growth of health care costs. the legislation's reported goal. few other issues. the $1 trillion score was not produced in the actual bill bossomry days before the text was introduced and what impact would the health care bill have on job losss? what would the big tax increase do to small business? what's the cost of the government planned and what happened if it doesn't have private plans play by the same rules? let's make sure we don't replace the bureaucracy of insurance with bureaucracy of government. neither one is good medicine. real reform is good medicine. let's do it right, let's take the time to work together as a team and solve this problem once and for all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: madam speaker,
currently highway connections are worsening, ports are clogged, rail lines are plagued with -- plagued with choke points, our communities are suffering with increased congestion, ever worsening air pollution and a struggling economy. we must act now to address these critical infrastructure issues and bring aid to our communtes. our community is struggling right now, not only with inefficient and underperforming transportation assistance, but also with high unemployment rates and a sluggish economy. the surface transportation authorization act introduced by chairman oberstar is a bold step forward on transportation policy that will address our aging infrastructure and create or sustain six million family wage jobs. we need to continue the work we did with the recovery act and move forward with this legislation now to boost the economy. aid our communities and transform our transportation system. thank you. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the
gentleman from texas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, a recent "the washington post" editorial listed among president obama's assets, quote, a steady affection from a large majority of the country, end quote. the national media frequently claim that the president is overwhelmingly popular. a new poll by rass muezzin tells a different story. the poll shows that just 28% of voters strongly approve of the way that the president is doing his job, 36% strongly disapprove, giving president obama an approval index rating of a -8%. that's before the american people find out about his plans to ration health care. a negative approval rating is hardly steady affection from the large majority of the country. the national media should tell americans the whole story, not tell them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. kagen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kagen: madam speaker, i rise this morning to strongly support the ideaed contained within our health care reform legislation. the idea is very simple. it's about equality, it's about no discrimination against any citizen due to exre existing medical conditions and isn't it about time? you know, it was a little over 50 years ago that this congress in a bipartisan way guaranteed equality at the lunch counter and now working together we're going to guarantee that every citizen has equality at the pharmacy counter, at the physician's office and at the hospitals they need to go to guarantee the health they require just to survive. this is our time in congress to work together to fashion a health care system that works for everybody, not just those who are chosen at the top of the feeding chain. i stand in support of health care reform that is meaningful, that guarantees no discrimination against any
citizen anywhere in this land. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, the unemployment rate in south carolina is over 12%. this is the third worst in the nation. but only 400 -- $400,000 in stimulus dollars have been spent. instead of creating jobs, red tape is slowing projects down and forcing millions to be spent on paying road lines and pouring sidewalks. instead of going toward job-creating projects like i-73. infrastructure investment is a proven job creator but instead of workers constructing miles on new and badly needed highways, we have miles of red tape. and we are at risk of seeing even more job losses as the obama administration and the senate stands against a new highway bill instead of setting a path of six years of needing investment in highways and transit, the other body and president obama wants to us wait
another 18 months. they want us to go down the same path as the last highway bill where 12 extensions led to hundreds of millions of dollars in reduced investments and tens of thousands of jobs lost. madam speaker, we can do better. we must move forward with a new highway bill, but with also must ensure that we give the space the need to cut through the red tape and creating new jobs. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania rise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. dahlkemper: thank you -- >> thank you. the introduction of health care reform marks tremendous progress. as a member of the committee on ways and means and a centrist democrat, i work to ensure that this legislation is built on american assetser, of innovation, competition, private-public choices and shared responsibility. i authored core provisions to increase access to primary care
and strengthen consumer protections in the private market, both of which are key to improving quality, efficiency and reducing the cost of care while improving health outcomes. these provisions will increase the number of primary care doctors and nurses, he increase reimbursement for primary care and coordinate pair for patients. co-payments will be elimb astronauted for all americans. insurance companies will be prohibited from excluding coverage for pre-existing conditions and we will require corge in plain language. as a member of congress, we have shared responsibility to contain health costs for families, business and government. while ensuring that every american has access to affordable, meaningful, stable coverage. the status quo's unacceptable and unsustainable. now is the time to act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
mr. broun: madam speaker, i'm a medical doctor, i used to do a radio program called house calls with dr. paul where i tried to explain medical problems to people so that they could understand it. here's a member of congress, i'm here this morning to try to explain this health care bill in ways that america can understand it. america needs to decide whether they want a health care system where they make the decisions with -- in conjunction with their doctor, or some washington bureaucrat makes those decisions. they need to make a decision whether they want a health care system where they have to wait long periods of time for surgeries and for tests, for m.r.i.'s and x-rays, where people who have cancer can't get the life saving treatments that they desperately need, which is what we've been sended from the other side. we have solutions.
republicans have introduced numerous bills and numerous bills will be introduced that will solve the health care problems. lower the cost of premiums, lower the cost of medicine, hospital bills and doctors bills. the american people need to decide and demand -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: over the fourth of july weekend i toured a detention facility in colorado where i met dozens of law-abiding immigrants. there are other immigrants like them throughout the country who find themselves in detention. some of these individuals include teenagers, torture survivors or the elderly. others are asylum seekers only to find themselves locked up like criminals at taxpayer expense. for thousands of immigrants in similar circumstances throughout the country, even if the department of homeland security rules in their favor, while they wait, we're paying $132 a day to feed them, clothe them, house
them. they want to be out working and paying taxes, but we insist that they avail themselves at our expense. while at the detention center, i met immigrants placed in detention following miner accidents that weren't their fault. due to the complicated nature of our system, most of them are stuck in an area of lawful and not. but regardless of the final outcome, separating parents from their american children by placing them in detention goes against our most basic values as americans. as congress works toward comprehensive immigration reform, -- i urge my colleagues to deal with the at the detention issue as part of that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: madam speaker, it's interesting to sit here on the floor and listen to my colleagues from the other side describe their health care bill.
it's going to solve everything. the only thing they haven't said is it's going to have a solution for cancer overnight and every other disease known to man. and i thought, where have we heard this kind of promise before? how far back do we have to go? and then i realized, it was the stimulus package. we were told we had to vote for the stimulus package on the president's time line and they guaranteed us unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. they guaranteed us all these jobs would be created. they guaranteed us the government solution. we've seen what's happened and now we're hearing the same thing from health care. just remember what the president said when he was in michigan recently and someone asked him a request about their 100-year-old mother. he said, under your system what would happen? and the president's response was, well, that's a tough question. we might just have to give her pain pills. that sounds like rationing to me. i'm not sure i want the federal
government -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: to tell me i should take a pain pill -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i come to the floor to discuss the young adults financial literacy act which i mentioned last week to help community organizations provide better financial education to young adults. as our reception drags on, it's clear many of the problems we face could have been avoided by better educating people about the financial system. today, across our country, thousands of young people are getting their first credit card, taking out loans for college and renting their first apartments. yet is it statistics show that many of these young adults never learn basic financial skills like budgeting, saving and maintaining manageable debt. my bill will help young people receive the financial education
they need before they take these critical steps. it will provide grants for the development and implementation of effective education programs, empowering the young generation of consumers at this critical economic time. , so i encourage my house colleagues to co-sponsor the young adult's financial literacy act. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this past week i held a town hall meeting in north port, florida. more than 300 people showed up. the common theme at the forum was that the government should not nationalize health care. my constituents don't want a one size fits all d system where bureaucrats choose treatment and doctors. my constituents want to make their own medical choices. some in congress are rushing to bring a complex and far-reaching
health bill to the house floor within the next two weeks. this plan has numerous challenges in it. first it imposes an 8% tax on small businesses who don't offer health insurance to their employees. most of these family-run businesses want to offer health care insurance but can't afford it. it's an 8% tax not on profit but on overhead. it becomes overhead. it's an 8% expense. how does taxing small business help us get out of the worst economic recession in more than a century? this is a job killer, not a job creator. let's work together and make it better for small business and stop the taxing on small business. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i heard my republican colleague from california suggesting that the president thinks this health care reform bill is --
it's not going to cure cancer, but if you think about the fact that in the bill we put so much emphasis on prevention and we make sure that 97% of americans who are not elderly would now be covered, the fact of the matter is, that means people gets to go to a doctor on a regular basis. if they go to a doctor and find out they have cancer at an earlier age they get the attention so they couldn't die from the cancer. you know what, if everybody goes to the doctors and as a result of that they don't have to go for more serious treatment there will be money saved and that can go towards more research for cancer and the cure for cancer. i will say to my colleagues, we're not saying it's going to cure cancer, but i tell you what, it will go a lot for those being diagnosed and helping them out.
thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: the president said if the stimulus got passed un employment would not go above 9%. despite spending $700 billion under the guise of stimulus, the national unemployment rate stands at 9.5%, a rate not seen in more than 20 years. the president continues to sell the american people on his failed stimulus plan. just recently, the president said the stimulus plan had, quote, done its job, end quote. the american people know better. the american people know you can't borrow and spend your way out to a growing economy. it's time for a real economic recovery plan, one that puts money back in the hands of
families and small businesses. it's time for congress to pass the house republicans' economic recovery plan, a plan for fiscal discipline and tax relief. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up i call up house resolution 644 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 89, house resolution 644. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3170, making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read through page 145, line 11. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. in the case of sundry amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house en gros and without division of the question. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2,after disposition of the amendments specified in the first section of this resolution, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or
their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent. section 3, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 4, during consideration of h.r. 3170, the chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule 18 and clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: madam speaker, i raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the rule violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. it waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of consideration. the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. after that debate, the chair will put the consideration to wit, will the house now consider the resolution? the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. i rise once again -- i rise today once again to plea with the majority party to lift the legislative version of martial law that's been imposed on
appropriation bills this year. we're more than halfway through the season, and so far we've had the -- in the appropriations committee -- i'm sorry -- for appropriations bills more than 700 amendments have been filed with the rules committee. only 119 or less than 20% have been made in order. roughly a quarter of them that have been made in order have been my earmark amendments which i'm pleased for. don't get me wrong. i'm grateful they're made in order. it's -- with these earmarks, this is about the only vetting, as shallow as it may be, on the floor of the house that these earmarks get because they're certainly not getting the vetting that they deserve in the appropriations committee. but this is insufficient. it's not right to have a legislative version of martial law on appropriation bills and to bring up the issue of timing, to say we don't have
time to deal with all the amendments that have been offered. as was demonstrated yesterday, when i asked unanimous consent five times, five times to simply swap out an amendment that was not ruled in order by the rules committee, that was germane, just not ruled in order, for one of mine that i have been given. it wouldn't have taken any extra time. we would have been under the same time constraints of the bill, so we would be living within the time constraints that the majority party has laid down. but the majority party simply wouldn't allow it because this isn't about time. this -- we adjourned or we were finished with legislative business by around 4:00 yesterday. we were finished by -- with amendments by 5:00. members were free to go after the last amendment votes around 4:00. this isn't an issue of time. but say that it was. if it was an issue of time,
then allowing amendments to be swapped and substituted or amendments to be modified within the time limit should be allowed. but instead, the majority party simply doesn't want to deal with certain amendments. they don't want their members to vote on certain amendments. that's what is at issue here. and as a result, the votes on amendments on these appropriation bills have all the excitement and anticipation of a cuban election. you know the result. it's going to be lopsided or it's agreed to in advance. and that may be efficient, the trains may run on time, but it isn't the legislative process that we're used to here. traditionally, appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule. that's always been important. it's become even more important over the last several years when we placed in those bills
literally thousands and thousands and thousands of appropriation requests by individual members, many of them no-bid contracts, members awarding no-bid contracts to private companies and in many cases their campaign contributors with virtually no vetting in the appropriations committee. and so the only opportunity we have to vet those is here on the house floor and then members are denied the opportunity in many cases to bring those amendments to the floor. and that simply is not right. let me take the bill that we'll be dealing with today and give a few examples. in the -- in the rules committee under this rule that we're dealing with now, many amendments were offered, as i mentioned, and they were submitted as requested by the rules committee, presubmitted, which we didn't even have to do with appropriation bills but we can accept that.
these were submitted and many of these were turned down. for example, one was to make in order to provide the appropriate waivers for amendment 87 offered by representative boehner, the minority leader, which would ensure that low-income d.c. students are able to receive a scholarship through the d.c. opportunity scholarship program by removing the requirement that students must be o.s.p. recipients during the 2009-2010 school year. this would simply allow the d.c. voucher program, the highly popular d.c. voucher program to continue. this is not something that is not germane. it is germane. this is the bill that deals with d.c. appropriations, but the majority party simply didn't want to vote on that. and so they rejected it, and it's out. later today i'll be asking for unanimous consent to substitute this amendment for one of mine that i have been fortunate enough to have made in order. it won't take any additional time. so time is not an issue. it's simply saying that we
should be able to vote on amendments that members want to vote on, not just those amendments that the majority leadership wants us to vote on. to lift martial law on appropriations bills, if only for a brief window for the appropriation bills that we still have to consider. another amendment -- i see mr. walden here, that he has offered, the walden-pence amendment wee prohibit funds being available in the act would implement the fairness doctrine and certain broadcast local regulations. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from oregon to speak about that. mr. walden: i'd like to thank the gentleman for raising this point of order. and how ironic the amendment we offered in good faith is fully in order under our house rules normally except for the gag order that's been placed on us by the rules committee. and how ironic that we're trying to stand up to protect first amendment free speech rights for american citizens and broadcasters to be able to
discuss political issues on america's airwaves, protect that right, as this house did in 2007 with a 309-315 bipartisan vote. we're -- 309-115 bipartisan vote. it's privileges that the american citizens have enshrined and the democratic leadership in this congress has conspired to prevent us from allowing that amendment to be debated on the house floor and voted on. and yet when it was brought before this house in 2007, 309 members voted yes. it was a 3-1 margin, stood up for free speech and to protect free speech on america's airwaves, to protect them to engage in political discussions on america's airwaves. members of both parties supported this. and yet today sometimes i feel like we're more of an iranian-style democracy. all these rules that have been
in place for many, many years in this house, historically back to its inception that allowed for open and vigorous debate on our house floor have been now twisted and turned and cramped down to the fact that you're gagged, i'm gagged, the people we represent are gagged. it's simply outrageous that this is occurring. we should be able to offer these amendments as we have historically in republican and democrat congresses in the past. this is nearly unprecedented in the scope of clamping down on our ability to represent our constituents and raise these issues on the floor of this great institution, this democratic institution where free speech and the opportunity to debate public policy issues is enshrined. what has this house come to? i yield back. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 10 minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker, and i pose the gentleman's point of order. i yield myself such time as i
may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, once again this point of order is not about unfunded mandates. it's about tv broadcasting and a whole variety of other things, but it's about delaying the bill that is under consideration and ultimately stopping it. i hope my colleagues see through this attempt and will vote yes so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. we must consider this rule today and we must pass this legislation. i have the right to close, but in the end, i will urge my colleagues to vote yes to consider the rule. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the chair. yes, this isn't about unfunded mandates. unfortunately it's about the only opportunity we have to stand and we'll stand up later when the rule is discussed, but i'm here because the rules
committee would not make in order the amendments that members want to offer. on an appropriation bill. these are bills that are brought to the floor under open rules, traditionally. to allow members the opportunity to represent their constituencies. but here we're being gagged and told we can't do that. because we're only going to allow the amendments that we want to hear. the ones that are noncontroversial, the ones we debated before and that we know won't impact negatively on us. that's not any way to run this body. i yield to the gentleman from oregon. >> i want to talk about how this body is being run. the energy and commerce committee yesterday, the best we could get on the democrat's health plan was a closed door briefing from the congressional budget office that was only open to members of our staff and no other staff and no other citizens and shut down to the press. now, i find that outrageous. so not only is this occurring on
the amendments we hope to bring that are fully within the scope of the rules of this house, that have been well vetted, and you can smile, i get it. you guys are in control. you're going to win. you got the votes. you can shut us down. but at the end of the day, at the end of the day, the end of the day, the american people get it. and they get that bills are being rammed through here without due consideration and process, that members of both sides of the aisle are having their amendments shut down and not even being allowed to be considered. i've been here 10 years now and i remember during appropriation season we worked hard. we worked day and night. sometimes a lot longer than i wished we'd work. but members had the right under our rules to bring amendments forward that were within the constraints of the rules of this house and the historic principles of this house and we had vigorous debates and we had tough votes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.
the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentleman's comments. but they did not speak to the point of order at all. so, madam speaker, again i want to urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the time has expired. the question is, will the house now consider the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question is decided in the affirmative. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. and for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from texas, mr.
sessions. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. perlmutter: all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. and i yield such -- myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: i also ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 644. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, house resolution 644 provides for consideration of h.r. 3170, the financial services and general government appropriations act for fiscal year 2010. this is the first financial services appropriations bill under a president who believes wall street actually needs someone to watch it. this bill provides the much needed resources for the federal government to improve our oversight of wall street while investing in small businesses on main street. as a member of the house financial services committee,
we've worked with chairman frank to examine the causes of our recent economic downturn. there were many causes of it, but our findings conclude that a large factor of this downturn was the misguided deregulation promoted in the financial markets. under the bush administration the securities and exchange commission was underfunded. the s.e.c. promoted a good old boy officer they're -- atmosphere that disregarded investor and taxpayer interest in favor of wall street wealth. and under the bush administration, the s.e.c. repeatedly turned a blind eye regarding fraud as they did with the warnings about bernie madoff. also, the s.e.c. knowingly helped build the house of cards that was the basis for this subprime mortgage bubble. under the bush administration big business just became too big to fail and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
a.i.g., bernie madoff, lehman brothers, bear stearns, wamu, wachovia and other financial disasters could have been avoided if our federal agencies were given the resources to connect the dots, look at the books and take preventative measures. this legislation increases funding for the s.e.c. by 8% over last year. it provides funds for the s.e.c. to hire 140 additional analysts to protect investors and taxpayers from nefarious corporate interests and schemes. those 140 new analysts can monitor publicly traded companies and restore trust for investors and taxpayers. this provision send as clear message to wall street that your days of wine and roses are over. the bill also increases funding for the f.t.c. to help consumers and go after illegal credit card practices. for my constituents back in colorado, this bill provides a
38% increase in funding for the small business administration. during an economic downturn, many individuals who have been laid off open small businesses where they can pursue their entrepreneurial dreams and be their own boss. this boost in funding will reinvigorate communities across the nation at the precise time that we need it. for the judicial branch this bill provides the federal judiciary the funds needs to hire additional staff and judges. in particular, the past year has seen a 28% increase in the number of bankruptcies. this bill will provide for 142 more staff for federal bankruptcy courts to put these businesses and individuals back on the road to recovery. finally, if there is one issue people in our districts will support in this bill, it is the reinstatement of auto dealer franchise agreements which were severed with little notice earlier this year. my own district, hundreds of
workers were put in jeopardy when g.m. and chrysler terminated their dealerships. even long-time profitable franchises. at a time when too many americans are unemployed, adding more workers to the unemployment rolls is the last thing our economy needs. this bill is another step toward economic recovery and i urge its adoption and i now reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from colorado yielding the time. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. sessions: i rise in opposition to the structured rule and i also rise in opposition to how my democrat colleagues continue to shut out republican voices on the floor of the house of representatives in virtually every commit here -- committee here in the house. my friends on the other side of the aisle have set a historic
precedent by shutting down the amendment process once again today to accomplish legislative business during the appropriations process and republicans disagree with this. madam speaker, you will continue to hear of our opposition and the american people will hear the same. chairman obey has set an arbitrary time line to finish the financial year 2010 spending bills which has forced the democrat-run rules committee to limit every single republican and democrat chances to offer amendments on the house floor. hundreds of amendments have been offered by my colleagues and have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion. what is this majority afraid of? why won't they allow for an open and honest debate that has happened for hundreds of years in this body? why won't we have open rules on
appropriations bills? because of this historical new restrictive process, i had to come as part of my committee assignments to the rules committee just to offer three commonsense amendments on wednesday night. not one was made in order for the debate today. two dealt with allowing the same restrictions and opportunities for first of all government employees and private contractors. in a time of record deficits by this democrat congress, congress should find a better way to deal with the american taxpayer for the success of this country and for jobs. instead they chose to ignore these amendments and ideas. my last amendment would have required this obama administration to post any interaction or communications with general motors as a public record. since the american public was not consulted before the
takeover of g.m., they should at least be a able to monitor now how their tax dollars are being spent. madam speaker, today we're discussing the financial services appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. it's my intent to focus on the huge increase in spending -- no surprise -- over last year's level to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that have intruded into the private sector. it was my idea to talk about how they will continue killing jobs and we will continue having historic record deficits. and to discuss the new democrat priority of using tarp dividends for more housing handouts instead of using that money to be repaid back to the taxpayer. this underlying legislation is a 7% or $1.6 billion increase
above the current year's spending levels and that's excluding the massive stimulus funding. even federal reserve chairman ben bernanke recently stated, and i quote, unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal stability, the law -- in the long-term, we will have neither financial stability nor a healthy economic growth. the congressional budget office has stated that the budget is on an unsustainable path. this bill does not represent a commitment to fiscal sustainability. with this legislation, congress only further slows down, slows down and impedes, our economic recovery and increases the financial burden placed on our children, grandchildren and our future. with the facade of fiscal sustainability, the obama administration is posing
sweeping financial reforms that will further stretch rather than help the banking industry. the obama regulatory plan calls for large interconnected companies to pay a heavy price by limiting companies from mixing banking and commerce. this potentially forces companies, like general electric, to spin off its largely lending sub sidary, g.e. capital, and turn it into a bank holding company with more regulations, less revenue and less loan capacity. once again, the democratic plan to kill private sector jobs and further encome ber and harm economic recovery. madam speaker, what kind of precedent is this administration and congress setting by forcing regulation on successful
businesses while completely avoiding responsibility and transparency in a their own spending habits? the american people should know you can't spend what you don't have, and that's exactly what this democrat majority is doing. according to the congressional budget office, the obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in five years. the congressional budget office just last week released a monthly budget review that states that the federal budget deficit reached $1.1 trillion, and this was reached during the month of june. according to c.b.o., that is more than $800 billion more than the deficit record through june, 2008. the bottom line is that the united states is looking at a possible $2 trillion record
deficit for this year alone. a long stretch from a group of people who talked about fiscal insanity just before the election. i think we know what the truth is. the democratic party is tax and spend. especially at a time of deep economic recession, this congress should be promoting pro-growth policies that reduce spending and increase jobs. unemployment continues to rise while our friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, bioo and spend their way -- borrow and spend their way consciously into record deficits. the c.b.o. estimates that unemployment benefits spending is more than 2 1/2 times than it was this point last year. the current unemployment rate is over 9.5%, which is the highest level in 26 years, and
their own budget estimates say it's going to rise. madam speaker, with record deficits and growing job loss, you would think that this majority would want to bring the national debt down and try to curb spending, but, nope, not going to happen. not what's on the floor again today. last month financial services chairman barney frank dropped a bill and held a hearing that would redesignate dividends from tarp funds to two housing slush funds. this would take the $6.2 billion in dividends paid back to the american people and would create a brand new spending program. it is unconscionable that any dividend received would be redistributed in new spending projects rather than returning it to the taxpayer. again, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, bioo and spend money that
not only they do not have but the american public -- borrow and spend money that not only they do not have but the american public does not have. madam speaker, how is this economy supposed to bounce back with this democrat congress forcing americans to pay for a failed $1 trillion stimulus package? a bailout for those who faulted on their own mortgages, a bailout for those who abused their credit cards, a bailout for corporate american bad decisionmaking, a new national energy tax and a possible $1.5 trillion health care package that will force 120 million americans off their current health care coverage. when does this malaise stop? where are the jobs? why are we spending more and
more money simply to get more unemployment? madam speaker, it should be asked on the floor of this house, where are the jobs? where are the jobs that were promised by speaker pelosi? they vap rate again today. in close -- voporate again today. in closing, madam speaker, i will say that we cannot tax, we cannot simply spend and borrow our way out of the country's economic recession that comes from the democrats running the house, the senate and the presidency. madam speaker, the misery index of this country continues to rise under the leadership of the democratic party, and rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending.
americans back home are tightening their belts and the u.s. congress should be doing the same. i encourage a no vote on this rule and a no vote on the previous question to amend the rule to allow for an open rule. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i have to say that my friend from texas and i couldn't disagree more about the causes of the troubles that exist today in our economy. the republican administration under george bush prosecuting two wars, cutting taxes for the wealthiest among us helped drive this country into the ditch. that coupled with a pension, a desire, a real effort to deregulate, unregulate and privatize led to failures all
throughout wall street and the banking system starts first with a $60 billion ponzi scheme conducted by bernie madoff. followed in part and at the same time by a $700 billion failure of wall street and financial institutions that had to be filled. president obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit as a result of the misguided policies of the republican party and the brucks -- and the bush administration. and with that i yield three minutes to my friend from michigan, mr. bart stupak. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. stupak: i thank the gentleman and the coach for yielding me time. as i rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, madam speaker, those of us who respect the right of life for the unborn know that when taxpayers fund abortion
more lives are lost to the tragedy of abortion. out of our conviction for the unborn, 180 members sent a letter to the speaker, the chairwoman of the rules committee and the chairman of the appropriations committee requesting that existing pro-life writers be included in any legislation reported out of the appropriations committee. these provisions include long standing restrictions. some have been there more than 30 years on funding for abortion, on the conscious clause and policies respecting human life. these restrictions are important. they are crucial, part of federal law, but they must be reapproved every year as they have been by both democratic and republican leadership. we asked that those policies remain in legislation out of respect of all americans who identify themselves as pro-life and out of the respect of pro-life members on both sides of the aisle. but anticipating the
possibility that a pro-life appropriation policy will be deleted, a bipartisan group of members asked for a reasonable accommodation by the rules committee. we asked that at a minimum the full house be given a reasonable opportunity to debate whether we should use taxpayers' money to fund abortions. we asked to just allows us an up and down vote on this critical issue. when we saw that the ban on government-funded abortion in the district of columbia was rendered meaningless, five democrats, five republicans, 10 members, a bipartisan group went to the rules committee and asked for a simple change, an amendment to strike one word on page 143, line 8, the word federal. unfortunately our amendment was flatly denied. we are not even given a chance to debate whether we should use taxpayer money to fund abortion
, a very basic issue, question facing this country. so unfortunately i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and also to vote no on the underlying bill in its current form. and in opposition to the rule which muzzles the life or the voices of pro-life members. i yield back the balance of my time, and i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: madam speaker, i appreciate the gentleman coming down and talking about the muzzle that's been placed upon members of this body by speaker pelosi. and this muzzle affects not just republicans but democrats and millions of people's voices that might be heard on the floor of this house. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from concord township, ohio, the gentleman, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. latourette: i thank you,
madam speaker, and i thank my friend from texas for yielding. madam speaker, it's a bad rule. it's a bad rule because it continues to muzzle the voices of representatives in this house that represent millions of people, as our friend from michigan just indicated, we should have a debate on these issues. at the end of the debate, somebody wins, somebody loses. i can remember in happier times and i can remember happier times when we were in the majority, sadly, that i had the honor to be where the speaker pro tempore is, and i sat for three days once doing the interior appropriations bill after member after member after member came and spoke and said what was on their mind on the issue of the day and voted. our democratic friends knew we had more votes than they did. we were going to win some. i'd like to thank upcal of people because in this horrible rule -- thank a couple of people because in this horrible
rule there is daylight. an amendment i inserted into the financial services appropriation bill during the course of the markup, and i want to thank chairman serrano and chairman obey for going before the rules committee and protecting that as well. the amendment simply says that we will not as taxpayers in this country give billions of dollars to general motors and chrysler unless until they come to terms -- until they come to terms to the hundreds of thousands of people they put out of work. we know their actions have put 30,000 auto workers out of work. we know that 50,000 people that worked for delphi have lost their health coverage. and this week we had the auto dealers in town, and the actions of the task force, the president's auto task force is going to cause the closure of 789 chrysler dealerships across this country, 2,600 general motors dealerships, about 60 people work at each dealership, over 200,000 people flown out of work because -- thrown out of work because of the goofy
action of an unelected task force and now the car companies are taking advantage. why do we know it's the goofy action of the task force? we know because both car companies filed a plan for reorganization on february 17. that plan was rejected. we know from mr. bloom, who is the new head of the task force, why that plan was re-- jected. he said we rejected that plan because they didn't get rid of enough people, they don't close enough plants and auto dealerships across the country. well, in response to that the car companies, if they want the billions, they came back and presented a plan that will now cause 300,000 people, 300,000 families to be without jobs in this country. i would say to my friend in texas, you would think, well, maybe this auto task force knows more about manufacturing cars and selling cars than the rest of us. but perhaps the gentleman knows out of all the members of the president's task force, do you think anyone has any experience
in making a car, selling a car, making a car part? no. no. they don't have any experience. as a matter of fact, "the wall street journal" -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latourette: many members of the president's task force doesn't even own a car and those that own a car owns a foreign car. we have to stop this madness and if we don't stop the madness the only stimulation of the economy will be the clerks at the unemployment office. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from colorado for his
time, and i thank the -- both chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee on financial services for what i think has been a wholeistic approach to the needs that we are going to have to address and what has been called an economic collapse as it has been based on the practices of our past administration. we're simply trying to put humpty dumpty back together again. i would think as we make progress on this bill, as we fund the small business administration that we will be reminded of the importance of language to advocate for small businesses. it is very disconcerting to find out how difficult it is for small businesses to actually do business with the federal government. veterans businesses, minority owned businesses, in essence, they don't have an advocate and our agencies are using good old boy systems to give business not to our small businesses but to others. we need that kind of advocacy in the small business administration. taxpayer advocacy, americans pay their taxes and there are people who work and pay taxes and want to do the right thing.
the taxpayer advocacy system needs to get teeth because it is dysfunctional. the i.r.s. does what it wants to do, treats taxpayers poorly, and the taxpayer advocacy needs to strengthen its ability to serve. it's important to ensure that the tarp oversight also includes the ability to make banks lend. but lastly, let me say how grateful i am for this language dealing with automobile dealers to restoring their civil rights and keep them in place. bob knapp of knapp chevrolet say we will lose jobs. the atrocity of g.m. to close this longstanding profit making employee providing institution is a shame. let us get chrysler and g.m. at the table to restore the ownership of these dealerships to their owners and let them sell cars the american way. the language in this bill is the right language. i thank those who have helped to offer this language, but now
we have to implement the language. get these car dealers back doing their jobs and to g.m. and to chrysler, accept these appeals recognizing the large number of jobs that will be lost, create a job or save a job, there are jobs here. we can save a job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from colorado springs, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: i rise today to oppose the provision in this financial services bill that allows taxpayer funded abortions in the district of columbia. we cannot seriously talk about wanting to reduce the number of abortions in this country and then turn around and pay for them with taxpayer money. planned parenthood's own researchers report that without public funding, 30% fewer women have abortions. we have seen many polls showing that the american people oppose using their tax dollars for abortions.
a poll done this year found that 69% of respond ants said they are against repealing the hyde amendment if its repeal would result in taxpayer funding of abortion as a method of birth control. life begins at conception and i cannot in good conscience support a bill that squanders taxpayer money for the first time in decades to destroy life in the womb. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill. i urge president obama to reject this bill and to oppose taxpayer funded abortions in the district of columbia. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. before i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, inside to respond to my friend from -- i need to respond to my friend from colorado as well as the gentleman from michigan who spoke earlier and i'm looking at page 143, lines 8 through 12, ction 812. says none of the federal funds appropriated under this act
shall be expended for any abortion except for where the life of the mother would be in dangered or -- endangered or where the pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or inset of and with that i yield four minutes to -- incest and with that i yield -- >> thank you for that brief response on my part. those funds are fungible. that's not a true prohibition. it will be used for taxpayer funded abortions and i yield back. mr. perlmutter: i thank my friend, i think the language is about as clear as it could be and with that, when it says none of the federal funds appropriated. but i will now yield to my friend from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for making the clarification before i could. let me tell you something about fungible funds, you go home and tell the folks in your county or in your city that the funds that come from the federal government
are fungible with their local funds and therefore we should have jurisdiction over what they do in your local jurisdiction and they may put you out of the house. the fact is that the committee was at pains to respect the difference between local and federal issues and i very much appreciate that they did. i'm surprised that mr. stupak would come to the floor without looking at the bill, to work up people on a exrofrle issue that we ask -- exrofrle issue that we ask only be left in our control in so much as it is left in the control of other americans. and throughout the united states, pursuant to supreme court decision in row v wade, local jurisdictions may use local funds for abortions for poor women. we are american citizens and we
demand to be treated as american citizens. we are older american citizens than some of you because we were created with the nation itself more than 200 years ago. and i appreciate that our rules committee appreciated our citizenship and responded to and respected it. for those who are new, they might say, well, why is the d.c. appropriation in the financial services bill? well, the proper question is, why are you having anything to do with the d.c. budget, a local budget? it is none of your affair. and it is an anomaly that we're going to cure soon. but the fact is, the fact is that it is here under the home rule act which made the district of columbia a self-governing
jurisdiction. it's in the financial services because there's no place to put it. there's no place to put it because it doesn't belong in a federal budget. because it's not the money of the people of the united states. these are the funds of the people who live in the district of columbia. the members -- some members may mistake, others deliberately come to the floor to try to impose their will on their choices, the choices of their citizens on citizens of another jurisdiction. they wouldn't stand for that for one second in their own jurisdiction, whether on abortion or on any other issue. we saw the deadly effects that can occur and i appreciate that mr. is he ranow removed from the d.c. appropriation an attachment that was responsible for the death and for the terrible
health of thousands of d.c. residents when we were barred from doing a needle exchange program that thousands of jurisdictions are able to do. we're not going to stand for it. it's not your business to deal with the health of my citizens or to keep us from doing things to keep them healthy. local control is older than the nation itself. the war slogan, no taxation without representation, meant to england as it means in the district when you see it on the license plates, take your hands off of the local jurisdiction that is not your own. this is the d.c. budget before you. it contains funds raised -- may i have another minute? mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, i'd like to inquire as to the amount of time on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from colorado has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from texas has 14 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. perlmutter: i yield the gentlewoman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields the gentlewoman from the district of columbia -- the the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized for one minute. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman. this is a local budget, make no mistake about it. no amendment is in order on somebody's local budget. your lip service to local control has the -- the time for that has run out. you have -- we have profound disagreements on some issues, from abortion to vouchers. go home and deal with them there. allow us to deal with these issues in our own way as a local jurisdiction. i appreciate that the rules committee has indeed respected our citizenship and i demand that other members of congress do so as well. i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, i would remind the gentlewoman from the district of columbia that the democratic party owns majority in this house, has 60 senators in the senate, has the president of the united states and that's how they can get their own things done. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from hood river, oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. walden: thank you very much. and it is kind of ironic for someone who is so passionate about achieving voting rights in this city that we would be denied voting rights on this floor on amendments that we sought to be considered. and that's really the issue i want to speak about at this time. and that is that we brought an amendment fully vetted within our rules to be allowable had the democrat majority allowed it
to be considered, to protect freedom of speech rights for broadcasters and american citizens when it comes to debating political issues, religious issues on the nation's airwaves. the great irony here is in this city we cannot and in this chamber cannot get a vote or even a debate on that amendment. under the new regime in charge here in the house. now, in 2007 when democracy was flourishing a little bit more in this body and members of congress elected by however many thousands of votes and representing more than half a million people, 650,000 people, could bring issues to this floor during this one time and have them debated and considered. and when mr. pence and i brought the broadcasting freedom amendment to this floor and it was allowed to be considered, 309 members of this body voted in favor of it. when we sought to renew the
prohibition on the federal government from putting federal sensors over the airwaves we were denied the opportunity to even have that debate. the one we got passed in 2007 expired a year later because it only went for as long as the appropriations bill. we have a bill, bipartisan bill, in committee to make this permanent, but once again the democratic leadership refuses to engage in democracy and allow us to even have a hearing on that legislation. now the irony is that both republicans and democrats in times gone by have abused the fairness doctrine. bill rudder, an assistant secretary of commerce under john kennedy, said, our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass right wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue, closed quote. george will reported in a column december 7, 2008, the richard nixon emulated that process.
what we're trying to do is prevent any party, any politician in washington, from using a flawed process to silence and gag political speech on the airwaves. we all ought to be for that. now the fairness doctrine is gone right now but there are many, including leaders on the other side of the aisle, who have called for its return. leader after leader, when asked by the press, has called for its return. some will say, well, no, that's not going to happen. well, they come around with a trojan horseback door and say we're going to do it under a different way, we're going to call it localism and if a broadcaster doesn't live up to what they're told to do, then their license will be pulled or whatever. we're just trying to say, no, government, we don't need your censorship, stay out of the process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. walden: stay out of the process and allow us -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. walden: don't just gag and spend. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield additional time?
mr. walden: i return the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: if i could i'd ask my friend from texas how many more speakers he has. we don't have any others and i'll close. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman asking due to the limited time i was allowed -- asking. due to the limited time i was allowed, we have at least three additional speakers. mr. perlmutter: this then i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i appreciate that, madam speaker. just for the record, i think we're on even time about now that's left is that an indication if i could engage the gentleman that he is through with his speakers? mr. perlmutter: yes, i don't have any other speakers. someone may come wandering in and i may ask for your indulgence but at this time we don't have any other speakers. mr. sessions: we will go ahead and proceed and run through our speakers with the indication he believes he's through at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman.
madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lee. in-- new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. for three minutes. mr. lee: i thank my friend from texas for yielding and i rise to strongly oppose the rule. i had offered an amendment to this measure that deals with one of the less discussed aspects of the restructuring of the auto industry. and that is the treatment of retirees. by now we all have heard the stories of workers who have given much of their lives to these companies only to see the retirement benefits slashed or completely lost. but with delphi corporation which is g.m.'s largest parts supplier, we have an incredibly egregious case of inequity. as part of the restructuring agreement, g.m. agreed to assume the pension benefits of delphi's hourly workers. 100% guaranteed. while the salaried workers' pension liabilities will be turned over to the federally chartered pension benefit guarantee corporation. when these pensions are turned over to the pbgc, salaried
retirees stand to lose up to as much as 70% of their pension payments. so basically we have two groups of employees who have worked side by side for the same company for decades and being treated so differently by the government. my view and that of a number of members on both sides of the aisle is that it's a fundamentally unfair, it will be incredibly damaging to these families. especially when going back to the beginning of the year, these same retirees lost not only their health benefits but also their life insurance. in the weeks since the decision has been announced, i have pursued all possible avenues to acquire information regarding how this inequityible decision was arrived at -- inequitable decision was arrived at.
i requested that congressional hearings on this issue be held in both the house and in the senate. now, the amendment i offered simply prevents funds from being allocated to the auto task force until all relevant data and documents pertaining to this matter are turned over. this is certainly an extraordinary step, but you and i and all americans are now 60% owners of general motors, and we have every right to use all tools at our disposal to get to the bottom of this travesty. my amendment was not made in order, which is unfortunate, because i have spoken with a number of these retirees, and they recognize the need to make sacrifices to order -- in order to ensure a better economy over this long-term period that we're struggling through. they did not, however, sign up for their benefits that they have counted on be taken from them, certainly not without a
substancive explanation. i encourage my colleagues to vote down this rule and have the house stand up for hardworking americans. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman from new york, and, madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from mesa, arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. flake: i have three minutes. i'd like to, if i can, engage the gentleman in a colloquy about the rule. i was told earlier that i was discussing an amendment -- i'm sorry -- point of order on unfunded mandates so we couldn't really talk about the rule. but now we are talking about the rule, so i'd like to have some kind of window into the mind of the rules committee as to why certain amendments were allowed on appropriation -- on an appropriation bill and certain were not. if i could engage in a colloquy i'd enjoy that.
mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, i'll let the gentleman do is a soliloquy and i would not join in a colloquy. mr. flake: i really feel for members on the rules committee that are forced to carry out the bidding of the leadership because this clearly, this clearly is a decision from the top this year to declare martial law on appropriation bills and not allow members of congress to bring amendments to the floor under an open rule that we have traditional, and this has been the hallmark of this institution, openness. the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette, mentioned that he'd been in the chair in previous years where for three days we debated amendments to the interior bill. many of those amendments were amendments that i offered. some of which were uncomfortable to people on that side and on this side, earmark amendments or others. yet we did it for three days.
this party has said -- the majority party now said we can't take three days on that bill. ok. then let's limit the time. so we agreed here we have time limits already set for the financial services bill. i have 11 amendments ma were made in order. i'll be -- that were made in order. i'll be asking unanimous consent to swap some amendments out, to modify them, to reflect amendmentes that were offered by members and not allowed by the rules committee. so it's not going to be an issue of time. we settled the issue of time. it will tell us whether or not the majority party simply wants to muzzle not just this side of the aisle but certain of their members as well. the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak, stood up to oppose the rule because the amendment with regard to federal funding for abortion was not allowed. that is one amendment that i will try to modify instead of
one of mine or have mine modified to reflect that amendment. again, it won't be an issue of time. the question will be, can or will -- they can -- will the majority allow that modification and allow that amendment to be offered? under rules of unanimous consent or under the rules of this body under unanimous consent the majority party can agree to modify any amendment that is offered by a member. and so it's not a question if they can, the question is if they will. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. sessions: madam speaker, thank you so much. and i appreciate the gentleman from arizona. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from hamilton, new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for yielding. madam speaker, ms. norton earlier suggest that had prohibiting funding for
abortion over which we have constitutional jurisdiction is none of our affair. to which i would respectfully submit, sending innocent and inconvenient children, protecting them from violence is always our affair. human rights and the defense of human rights, protecting the weak and the most vulnerable is always our affair. so i would respectfully ask members to reject this rule. last week president obama told of all people the pope that he wanted to reduce abortion. oh, really? this week pursuant to mr. obama's 2010 budget policy request, the house is getting ready to reverse a longstanding pro-life policy that prohibited taxpayer funding for abortions except in the rare cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. today's vote isn't just about whether pro-life americans will be forced to subsidize dismembering unborn children to death or paying to poison unborn children to death or including delivering premature
children to eeffect wait their destruction, children that can't stand life outside the womb, or abandoning women to the abortionist. we know that abortion hurts women. the evidence grows every day. retaining current law, and that's what the lincoln davis and todd tiahrt amendment would have done, actually reduces abortion. some of my colleagues have already pointed out, it couldn't be more clear. the evidence is in. when you deny funding for abortion, the numbers go down. so when president obama says he wants to reduce abortions, take away the public subsidy. my friend on the other side said no federal funds. we have jurisdiction over all the funds with regards to this account. if we want to save a life, please don't use that kind of very thin and i think very shallow argument.
saving a life in the district of columbia is no different than saving a life anywhere in the united states of america. these are our children. we need to protect and safeguard those children from the violence of abortion. if you want to reduce abortion, madam speaker, and members, colleagues, don't subsidize it. the good marker institute planned parenthood said that between 20% and 35% do not get abortions under the medicaid program because of the height amendment. there are thousands of children in the district of columbia who today are enjoying nair summer vacation, playing ball, having fun, getting ready to go back to school late august and early september because the subsidy was not there to efectuate their very painful demise through abortion. abortion is child -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.
mr. smith: it is violence against children. vote no on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from new jersey. this debate focuses on jobs, more spending by this democrat majority, higher unemployment, more taxation, further government intrusion into the financial sector of this country, and we've heard about even some issues dealing with abortion that the gentleman, mr. stupak, brought to this floor, that the gentleman, mr. smith, brought to this floor. so i'll be asking for a no vote on the previous question so we can amend the rule tdo it right, to go back to what's been essentially 200 years of rules on appropriations. there's no question that this rule the majority brings forward today will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority is setting every
single day. madam speaker, it's so sad because no new member of this body in the last session or this session has ever seen an open rule. they're damaging bipartisanship in this body. it's sad. i'll urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so we can allow a free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the right of millions of americans who've been gagged, not only by speaker pelosi, but the rules committee. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. i urge a no vote on the previous question, no vote on the rule, and once again, a demand from the republican party where we want to know, where are the jobs that were promised, madam speaker? i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. and i will close, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: first, as to my friend from oregon and his concernness about the fairness doctrine, there's nothing in the bill that allows for the fairness doctrine. he was concerned about a smile that i had on my face because i remember when the gentleman brought the amendment last year and i supported his amendment. but there is nothing in the bill that provides for the fairness doctrine, and in effect what he's trying to do is restrain something that doesn't exist. so that's point number one. point number two to my friend from new jersey, i respect his passion about abortion and his feelings about abortion. it is a very emotional and difficult discussion. but section 812 of the bill at
page 143 couldn't be more clear. none of the federal funds appropriated under this act shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. and to my friend, i'm not going to yield. i'm closing at this point. so to those two specific points , i wanted to make my comments. as to my friend from texas and his closing argument. simply doesn't hold water. the administration that preceded the obama administration, the administration of george bush drove this country into a fiscal ditch. and it's going to take everything that we have to get out of that ditch. the banking system almost collapsed, jobs were lost,
plants were closed, businesses were shuttered, homes were foreclosed. and it is with great effort, great energy that we are trying to reverse what occurred because of the reckless actions of that administration. under this bill there is more money invested in small business administration to encourage and build and strengthen our small businesses, which have been hurt by this recession, but that is the engine that will ultimately drive this economy. we need to get small businesses back on their feet. that happens in part through this bill. secondly, we restore reasonable regulation to the marketplace, regulation that was denied and excluded under the prior administration, the securities and exchange commission was in effect rendered neutral and
newtered under the prior administration -- neutered under the prior administration, exposing the country to giant ponzi schemes, like those conducted by bernard madoff. we need to make sure that our federal trade administration -- unfair and deceptive trade practices. the judiciary has to be staffed to handle all the bankruptcies that have occurred. the bill that is pending that we propose will assist the federal government in managing these affairs. finally, mr. latourette's amendment concerning the auto dealers is an important portion of this bill to give those who had franchises and were terminated improperly the right to get their franchise back and their dealerships open and going again, thereby saving jobs. this is an important piece of legislation. this bill helps keep the
government running. so providing the funds that exist in the bill is something that we must move forward on. so i would 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: all time for debate having expired, 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. sessions: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are 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. house resolution 1442 by the yeas and nays, house resolution 129 by the yeas and nays, house resolution 2188 by the yeas and nays, house resolution 409 by the yeas and nays. ordering the previous question on house resolution 644 by the yeas and nays. adopting house resolution 644 if ordered, house resolution 543 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1442 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1442, a bill to
provide for the sale of the federal government's reversionary interest in approximately 60 acres of land in salt lake city, utah, originally conveyed to the mount olivet cemetery under the act of january 23, 1909. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. t
the speaker: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, i have the honor to transmit herewith a facsimile copy of ms. kathy mitchell, chief of elections division of the state of california of state's office indicating that according to the unofficial returns of the special election held july 14, 2009, the honorable judy chu was elected to congress for the 32nd congressional district,
state of california. with best wishes, i am, sign sincerely, robert graves, for lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask that the honorable judy chu be permitted to take the oath of office today. no question has been raised with regard to her election. the speaker: without objection. will representative-elect chu and the members of the california delegation present themselves in the well. all members will rise. and the representative-elect will raise her right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the constitution of the
united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, and that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? ms. chu: i do. the speaker: congratulations, you are now a member of the house of representatives.
the speaker: the gentleman from california, mr. stark, is recognized for one minute. mr. stark:, madam speaker, as dean of the california delegation, it's my duty and a deep pleasure to introduce the newest edition to our delegation, dr. j udy chu. the election of dr. chu is groundbreaking, not only because she's a renaissance woman, she taught psychology at east los angeles community college and also because she's the first chinese american woman ever to serve in congress. dr. chu's impressive record as an elected official goes back over a few years. she was elected the garvey school district's board. she's held the title of mayor, city councilwoman, state
assemblywoman. vice chair of the california board of equalization and now a member of congress. this -- the cause she's championed over the years are as varied and important as the office she has served in. as chair of the assembly and appropriations committee she chaired programs benefiting students, people with disabilities and that the elderly were properly fund. she built coalitions to pass legislation that enhanced protections for victims of domestic violence, threatened with hate crime laws and brought much needed improvements to public school facilities. her experiences as professor of public servant, advocate for families and the less fortunate will make her an important voice in this congress. i know she's ready to hit the ground running and please join me in welcoming dr. judy chu to the house of representatives.
ms. chu: speaker pelosi, and fellow members of the house of representatives, i'm so hobbered and humbled -- honored and humbled to be here in this great hall of congress. i'm especially honored to follow in the footsteps of my mentor, secretary of labor hilda solis, who's support and encouragement i truly cherish -- chose support and encouragement i truly cherish. i've been proud to be elected by a district of the people of california that is diverse, that is working class and that cares deeply about its senior centers, parks and community centers.
they are anxious to ensure that their kids will have a job when they graduate from college, that they don't have to fear getting sick and that they can be secure in staying in their homes. i look forward to working with you in making sure that this happens. i want to thank my supporters for believing in me so strongly and they're up there. i want to thank my family, my nieces, my family and especially my husband, mike yang. it is at times like this that i think about my grandfather who came to this country with nothing.
he worked hard and opened up a small chinese restaurant and working night and day and day and night he used that very expensive labor, his sons, to make ends meet. and now two generations later, here i am. america is truly the land of opportunity. i thank you all very much. the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentlewoman from
california, mrs. chu, the whole number of the house is 434. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 129 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 104, h.r. 129, a bill to authorize the conveyance of certain national forest is system lands in the los padres national forest in california. the speaker pro tempore: the qu question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 422, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the bill is suspend -- the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. walden: i have a privileged resolution at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman rise to give notice under rule 9. mr. walden: i'm sorry, madam speaker, i'm having trouble hearing you. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman rise to give notice under rule 9? mr. walden: yes, madam speaker, under rule 9. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may give notice. mr. walden: the notice is as follows, whereas the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, submitted an amendment to the
committee on rules, whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have protected the free speech rights of broadcasters and american citizens by prohibiting funds made available in the act from being used to implement the fairness doctrine -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. walden: whereas a similar amendment was adopted by this house in 2007 during consideration of h.r. 2829, the financial services and general government appropriations act, 2008, by a vote of 309 yeas and 115 nays and became law, but the democratic leadership allowed the provision to expire, whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable rule of the house for amendments to appropriation measures. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspund -- suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman macon. mr. walden: whereas the
gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process, but regrettably, the house democratic leadership has reduced the opportunity for free speech on this floor and whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, the democratic leadership, and the chairman of the committee, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: will members please take their conversations off the floor. mr. walden: by excluding it from the list of amendments made in ordered under think rule for the bill, now therefore be it resolved that h.res. 644, the rule to accompany h.r. 3170 be amended to allow the amendment to be considered and voted on in this house. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of
the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from oregon will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2188 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 108, h.r. 2188 a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior, through the united states fish and wildlife
service to conduct a joint venture program to protect, restore, and enhance migratory birds, their habitats and the ecosystems they rely on through voluntary actions in public and private lands and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [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 representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 400, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. baca, to spu spend the rules and pass h.r. 409, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 409, a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain land bureau land
management land to the state of california and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [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 representatives.]
the rules are suspend swed -- suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 644 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 89, house resolution 644, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3170, making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [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
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227, the nate -- the nays are 200. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution -- mr. sessions: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.
those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [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