Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  July 16, 2009 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
the house, no one will do a better job of representing the people of south carolina than mr. brown. he publishes his requests on his website, it's done in a transparent and open way. we all of us are accountable to our constituents and the way we conduct the business of our office. but it is time for the american people to stand up and demand that the rules be rigged in favor of the taxpayers. i'm sick and tired of this congress spending money that our kids don't have, of rigging the game, the rules of the game so that we cannot cut taxes, so you can't cut spending. this a charade. it's not right, it's wrong for our kids, and it's time to cut spending, cut taxes and quit -- quit driving up the national debt. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: if the gentleman would continue in that vein, i'd give him more time. i've got a bit of whiplash, i thought the gentlen was arguing to not spend another $100,000 on myrtle beach, the
5:01 pm
convention center attached to myrtle beach's premiere hotel, the sheraton. mr. culberson: would the gentleman yield? mr. flake: if the gentleman is in support of the bill, i yield. mr. culberson: but your amendment doesn't save any money. mr. flake: we were in the majority for the first six years i was here, we could have cut the 302a's and the -- but we didn't. and now we have appropriators now in the minority party blaming appropriators in the majority party for not doing what we should have a few years ago. so it all seems to me to make sense when you see a chart like this. . that explains the spoil system the earmarks are. when 70% of the earmarks go to 24% of the house. when less than 14% of the house
5:02 pm
gets well over 50% of the dollar value overall of earmarks. so i have to say we have to start somewhere. if we can't start by saving $100,000 for the myrtle beach conference center, i don't know where we can start. i really, really don't. so i would just urge my colleagues if we say we are fiscally responsible, then show it instead of standing up and saying, hey, we need to cut spending, but first before we cut spending we've got to spend another $100,000 on the myrtle beach convention center. i think the taxpayers have heard that for far too long. when we were in the majority and now with the new majority. at some point we have to say we are not going to do this anymore. that's what we are attempting to do with this amount. i would urge support of it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona.
5:03 pm
so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask for recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report number 111-208, for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk, designated number 16. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16, printed in house report number 111-208, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 644, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form that i have at the desk. the chair: is there objection? mr. serrano: i object. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: would the gentleman yield? mr. flake: the gentleman has
5:04 pm
time, i believe. i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. serrano: i just wanted to know if there was a time during this debate where you are are going to show great -- any gratitude to the rules committee for the fact on the 17 amendments you got 11? mr. flake: i have said from the beginning i'm grateful for the amendments i get. but the vote on my amendments typically has all the excitement and drama as a cuban election where we know the outcome, unfortunately, and it serves as a useful purpose for the majority party. i'm grateful for the amendments i get. i guess you have to be grateful and just express gratitude for the benevolence of the majority party for granting me a few amendments on a bill that has traditionally come to the congress under an open rule. if that's what we have come to in this house to just express gratitude for the crumbs that fall from the table in terms of
5:05 pm
being allowed to offer amendments on appropriation bills, i hope we haven't come to that. mr. chairman, i'm starting to wonder. i would have liked to have offered an amendment in substitute for one of mine that would again this would be for the d.c. school choice initiative to allow it to continue, to allow students to have the choice of where they go to school. but we are denied once again. this amendment would remove $100,000 from funding the pittsburgh life sciences greenhouse tech belt biosciences initiative and reduce the cost of the bill by commensurate amount. this earmark states that the funding will be used for the creation of a biosciences tech belt. and i'm anxious to learn what that is. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i'll be be happy to tell my friend what it's about. the goal of this project is to promote partnerships between
5:06 pm
various biotech industries and encourage growth in the biosciences. pittsburgh life sciences greenhouse is a private-public partnership that provides entrepreneurial life science center prizes in pittsburgh and western pennsylvania with the resources and tools they need to make global advances in research and patient care. both pittsburgh and cleveland are hubs of innovation and entrepreneurship. there are currently 800 companies in the biosciences sector employing more than 25,000 people in this tech belt region. this project will foster growth in the biotech sector by linking companies between the two cities. pittsburgh life sciences greenhouse has worked with companies in over 20 counties throughout western pennsylvania since its inception in 2001 due to the extraordinary work, 14.5 million has been committed in 60 companies which have leveraged over $300 million in additional funding from venture capitalists , 228 companies have been
5:07 pm
launched or grown using pittsburgh life sciences greenhouse services. over 300 jobs have been created or retained in the pittsburgh life sciences greenhouse invested companies. the tech belt biosciences initiative takes these activities to the next level by collaborating with its counterpart in cleveland, an organization called bioenterprise. together pittsburgh and cleveland pull in $1 billion in combined n.i.h. research dollars which can spin off hundreds of companies and in turn create jobs. the tech belt biosciences initiative is designed to maximize this tremendous opportunity to improve public health, generate economic growth in a region of needed jobs, and ultimately make the region ain't national destination for biosciences. promoting such growth and development not only benefits the state of ohio but the state of pennsylvania and the entire country as a whole. it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to my friend from pittsburgh, mr. altmire. mr. altmire:00 i --
5:08 pm
mr. altmire: i thank the gentleman from pittsburgh. i understand what the gentleman was doing here. he was going through the earmarks as he does. somebody needs to do that to make sure it's on the up and up. he saw the word greenhouse and thought why are we giving $100,000 to a greenhouse in pittsburgh? it's the pittsburgh life sciences greenhouse. we in pittsburgh have the university of pittsburgh medical center, carnegie mellon university, we are partnering with cleveland as congressman doyle just talked about where you have the cleveland clinic and case western reserve. we have literally thousands of life science biotech start-ups throughout the region that are doing great work, that are creating jobs, growing the economy. and when you hear the word greenhouse, that's what that's about. we are growing the economy in western pennsylvania and northeastern ohio. and this relatively modest investment that we are making through this earmark is going to fund an organization that has promoted 80 different venture capital firms that have directly
5:09 pm
funded 60 different companies through the initiative that we are talking about. so it attracts private investment, angel investors, and venture capital firms that otherwise would not be involved in the pittsburgh and cleveland technology corridor. which has suffered with job losses because of trade agreements and because of the down economy over the past several years. what we have done here is put together a group that's going to attract outside investment to capitalize many fold above and beyond the relatively modest investment we make here. and we are talking about an organization that just directly through this pittsburgh technology belt, pittsburgh cleveland tech corridor, has grown 400 jobs and generated $300 million in venture capital and angel investment. so i think this is a very worthwhile investment that we can make to grow the economy. and pittsburgh has weathered the storm very well. what we are talking about today has resulted in the fact that
5:10 pm
pittsburgh has an unemployment rate that's below the national average. mr. doyle: i'd like to yield any remaining time to our friend and colleague from ohio, mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. for one minute. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. this is a great investment for our community to pull these two, cleveland, youngstown, pittsburgh corridor together. i would like to remind the gentleman from arizona as i have before and will continue on every amendment, his congressional district, mr. speaker, wouldn't even exist. you in arizona it's a desert. all the water lines, all the sewer lines, the $7 billion central arizona project was paid for by the taxes of the steel workers in pittsburgh. we helped build the west, our area. now we are saying we need to retool our economy. i think it is imperative for everybody in this house to know.
5:11 pm
we are all americans here. and so to take investment during the 1950's and 1960 's, to build the west and have a member of congress come before us here living in the largess having water in the desert so they can have nice golf corresponds and tell two members of congress -- courses and tell two members of congress from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, that this is a bad use of federal money. why don't we send the state of arizona a bill for the $7 billion that built the central arizona project that september all these waterlines and sewerlines and public investment out there. maybe we should asker for that money back and put it towards deficit reduction. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: well, that was an interesting recitation of western history, can i tell you that. -- i can tell you that. this tech belt was created two years ago. the c.e.o. of bioenterprises of cleveland decided to collaborate
5:12 pm
and leverage the existing resources in pittsburgh and cleveland. and this tech belt initiative was born. but this is an interesting quote. i want everyone to hr this. john. c.e.o. of pittsburgh life sciences greenhouse, said the objective was to, quote, create some excitement and get funding from the federal government, unquote, to build up their regions. it's been successful at that, believe me. there's a lot of money that has gone in federal earmark money, that's for sure. according to the press release of the sponsor of this earmark, in this year's omnibus appropriation act alone, his district received $55 million in federal funding from earmarks. that's just in the omnibus bill itself. may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from arizona has one minute remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania's time has expired. there flake: i yield the gentleman from pennsylvania -- mr. flake: i yield the gentleman
5:13 pm
from pennsylvania. wanted to speak on a previous earmark. i yield him the last minute i have here. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman. regarding flake number 14 amendment. i want to let the -- my colleagues know that the economic growth connection of westmoreland county located in greensburg is a valuable resource to manufacturers in helpingp to keep local employees, especially at a time when we are struggling with our economy. the funding for this will be used for small and medium-sized businesses and give them additional support they otherwise would not be able to afford and helping small manufacturers compete with large firms to gain defense contracts and other jobs. it helps them seek out some private funding shall. it helps them find building and maintenance databases that showcases unique capabilities they have. it helps them locate places for their manufacturing to take place. it provides several services that otherwise these businesses would have to at a much larger expense hire someone to take care of.
5:14 pm
it provides jobs. it provides help, and i hope my colleagues in response to that will oppose that amendment and help preserve some jobs in the area. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. flake: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in house report number 111-208. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flaveg: i have an amendment at the desk, number 17, my final amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17, printed in house report number 111-208, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 644, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent for the 11th
5:15 pm
time that my amendment be modified in the form at the desk. the chair: is there objection? mr. serrano: i object. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. i wish we could have modified the amendment. i would have again submitted the broadcaster freedom act to allow to us limit funding to the f.c.c. so that they wouldn't be able to restrict broadcaster freedom. . across this country. i wasn't allowed one more time. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lunfwren. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i've been sitting in my office watching this debate, and i am -- i'm absolutely astounded that the general criticism of the gentleman from arizona appears to be that his amendments appear to be really no consequence. why you nitpicking, going after different earmarks? and yet the gentleman has on 11
5:16 pm
occasions, i believe, ask to substitute that no one could disagree with, that is they would be a serious amendmentes that would go to consequential issues that this house should be able to vote upon. and yet because the actions of the rules committee, this democratic party, time and time again this gentleman has not been allowed to do that. and so the american has not allowed to make decisions. i first came to this house in 1979. one of the things that was crystal clear at that point in time when you had appropriations bills every single member, no matter whether they were a member of the majority or minority side, could make amendments. why? because the power of the purse is the strongest weapon we have in the house of representatives to be able to exercise the will of the american people. and yet time and time again we are being prohibited from doing that. and the gentleman from arizona
5:17 pm
has given us an opportunity to do this. the chair: the gentleman's one minute has expired. mr. flake: i yield 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: and yet the gentleman from arizona is giving us an opportunity to exercise our constitutional prerogative to represent our constituents here. and we are being denied that time and time again. shame on this house. mr. flake: this amendment will strike $900,000 for the city of loma linda, california, and the city of grand terrace, california, for an infrastructure expansion project to reduce the bill by a commensurate amount. the sponsor said these funds would establish a fiber-optic expansion pilot project between loma linda and grand terrace business park. it is how internet access can promote small business, create jobs, enhance local
5:18 pm
competitiveness, on and on and on. sponsor says this is needed because private loans are unavailable as a result of the credit crunch, and this region would benefit from the use of federal dollars. as a initial investment for future expansions. boy, we've heard that song before. there is a credit crunch out there, no doubt. every business across the country will tell you about it. but not every business can say, i'm going to grab $900,000 in funding. yet, that's what we're doing here. we're picking and choosing which cities, which municipalities, which organizations can get these dollars rather than is a, you know, mr. taxpayer, maybe you ought to keep that money and spend it yourself. we are going to have to increase taxes at some point to pay for this, and we're telling everybody out there just to live with it because we make better decisions here on business investments in the u.s. house than you do as a small businessman. that's in essence what we're
5:19 pm
saying. and it's time we stop that, mr. chairman. we can't continue to go on. and if we can't strike $900,000 in funding for a project like this, then i don't know where we start. i really don't. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from reserves the balance of his time. -- the gentleman from arizona reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. emerson: this was made in compliance with the rules and procedures of the house. in addition, the small business administration was given an opportunity to vet this project and provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project. unfortunately, mr. lewis, the sponsor of the amendment, was unable to come to the floor due to other important business. i ask unanimous consent to submit mr. lewis' statement for the record. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's statement will be covered under general leave. mrs. emerson: thank you, mr. chairman.
5:20 pm
i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a quarter remaining. mr. flake: we passed a milestone that's probably not -- we shouldn't be proud of. just last week i think the webster dictionary finally put the definition of earmark in its dictionary. not the traditional definition that i was used to as a kid on a ranch where you earmark cattle but rather an earmark is a designation of dollars from the congress via a particular congressman. when we passed that milestone i think we've gone too far. if it's in the lexicon so frequently that the dictionary is picking it up. the appropriators have been trying to find earmark in the constitution for years without success. at least they'll find it now in the dictionary. but that's not something we should be proud of. at some point we have to stand up and say we've got to stop
5:21 pm
this when we have thousands and thousands and thousands of earmarks in appropriation bills over the year and we can't seem to cut funding for one of them here. i don't know when we're going to cut funding. i don't know when we're going to get a hold of this deficit that we have unless we start somewhere. and i would suggest that we start here on this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. flake: on that i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-208 on which further proceedings were
5:22 pm
postponed in the following order. amendment number 3 by mr. price of georgia, amendment number 4 by mrs. emerson of missouri, amendment number 5 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee, amendment number 6 by mr. broun of georgia, amendment number 7 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 8 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 9 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 10 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 11 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 12 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 13, 14, 15, 16 of mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 17 by mr. flake of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, on which further
5:23 pm
proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-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.]
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
5:45 pm
5:46 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 146, the nays are 279. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. emerson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mrs. emerson of missouri. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
5:47 pm
this will be a two-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.]
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172. the nays are 250. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-208 offered by
5:50 pm
the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183, the nays are 247. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote -- the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were -- the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise
5:54 pm
and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 149, the nays are 282. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
5:57 pm
the clerk will redesnate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 89, the nays are 342. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 f political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 115. the nays are 314.
6:03 pm
the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed boy vose voigt. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, printed in house report number 111-208, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded volt is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 94. the nays are 336. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on
6:06 pm
amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-208, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were post opponend -- postponed and which the noes previled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in house report number 11-2 o 08, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
6:07 pm
6:08 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 93. the nays are 337. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request forward recorded vote on
6:09 pm
amendment number 11 reported in house report number 111-208, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevoiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in house report number 111-208, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the requested for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
6:10 pm
6:11 pm
6:12 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are are 14. the nays are 318. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request forward recorded vote on amendment number 12er printed in house report number 11-2308, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevoiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, printed in house report number 11-208, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
6:13 pm
6:14 pm
6:15 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 102 the nays are 326, one member voting present. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the aimed. cloim amendment 13 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,
6:16 pm
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.]
6:17 pm
6:18 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 120, the nays are 311, the amendment is not agreed to. the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,
6:19 pm
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
6:20 pm
6:21 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 119, the nays are 312, the amendment is not agreed to. a request for recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.
6:22 pm
[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.]
6:23 pm
6:24 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 99,he nays are 332, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 16 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed no house report 111-208 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.
6:25 pm
members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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
6:26 pm
6:27 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 104, the nays are 325, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in house report 111-208 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 111-208 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a record vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having
6:28 pm
arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
6:29 pm
6:30 pm
the chair: the yeas are 74. the nays are 350. the amendment is not agreed to. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman from ssouri. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the committee will be in order. members, please take their seats. take their conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.
6:31 pm
mrs. emerson: i'd like to take this time to yield to the gentleman from kansas, mr. tiahrt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiahrt: i thank the gentlewoman from missouri for her leadership and allowing me time to speak. mr. speaker, it is my goal to have a clean up or down vote to restrict tax dollars from paying for abortions in the district of columbia. i'm just asking for a clean up or down vote. because i think many people in america do not want us to take tax dollars and provide abortions. now, there has been a letter sent to speaker pelosi, to chairman obey, and chairwoman slaughter on ts very important issue back be on february 25. the chair: the gentleman will suspend, please. the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: i was a co-signer of this letter to the speaker to
6:32 pm
the chairman of the appropriations committee and the chairwoman of the rules committee, along with another 179 members, including 21 democrats. it was requested that any changes to pro-life riders would be allowed an up or down vote on the floor of the house. i was joined in an amendment on this bill by mr. davis of tennessee, mr. shuler of north carolina, mr. jordan of ohio, mr. stupak of michigan, mr. smith of new jersey, mr. costello of illinois, mr. pitts of pennsylvania, mr. marshall of georgia, and ms. bachmann of minnesota. we simply requested we strike the word federal from the bill saying no funds shall be made veilable to provide for abortions. that rule -- that amendment was not made in order by the rule. mr. flake of arizona has tried to substitute one of his amendments that were made in order for this amendment so that we could have a clean up or down vote. so the whole purpose of the
6:33 pm
motion to recommit that i intend to offer will be to get a clean up or down vote on this issue. now, currently the bill allows for public funds to be spent on abortions. it does limit federal funds, but all this money goes into the same bank account. it is a bookkeeping exercise to try to sort it out. it is impossible to sort it all out. what it means is there will be no prohibitions on abortions in the district of columbia in this bill. in fact, tax dollars will be providing abortions in the bill. regardless of whether it's federal or local funds, they will occur. now, we know this has happened in the past. in 1996 there was an amendment passed called the dornan amendment which restricted funds from providing abortions. following that bill once they were stopped, there was a study done by an institute. they found out that there was a 34% drop in abortions in the district of columbia. when these funds were
6:34 pm
restricted. i have heard the president say and i have heard many people who are pro-choice say that they are for reducing the number of abortions. this clearly will be a reduction in the number of abortions if you oppose this -- if you will support this amendment and allow me a clean up or down vote on the amendment that i'm joined with by many others. 70% of americans according to polling data oppose using public funds for abortions. so regardless of where you're at on the issue, certainly those folks, those 70% of americans need an opportunity for their voice to be heard on the floor of the house. they need an up or down clean vote on whether we are going to take public funds to provide abortions or not. if you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are -- single parents, living below the poverty level, to have
6:35 pm
the opportunity for a free abortion. if you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? our president grew up in a similar circumstance. if that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it? clarence thomas, supreme court justice, if those circumstances were in place, is it possible that we would be denied his great mind? the opportunity to have tax funded abortions, a financial incentive, is something that i think most of us want to oppose in america and it's certainly deserves a clean up or down vote. so it's my intent to offer a motion to recommit that is clean, simply strikes the word federal on page 143, line 8 , and allow an up or down vote. if this is ruled of order i
6:36 pm
would like to encourage those of us here to please allow this vote. clean vote up or down. i yield back the balance of my time. miss emerson: . -- mrs. emerson: i yield back. the chair: the the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: what this needs is not an up or down vote it needs clarification. he's doing this to bring up an issue, a very difficult issue we deal with in this society that does not belong anywhere on this bill. the fact of life is that his amendment is out of of order but we will discuss that later at the proper time. let's be clear on what this bill does on that particular issue. for a long time, for as long as i can remember, this congress, that side of the aisle, has been telling the people, the citizens of the washington, d.c. what to do. not only on the issue of abortion, on the issue of of needle exchange, on the issue of
6:37 pm
guns, on the issue of gay marriages, on whatever issue is important to go back home and say i am strong on this issue rather than doing it in their districts, they do it on the district of columbia. so they stand up and they say, they stand up and say i'm strong on this issue. yeah, you are, in d.c. i'm strock on -- strong on that other issue, yes, you are are, in d.c. i'm strong on this third issue, absolutely, in d.c. d.c. is not a foreign country. d.c. is american citizens, residents of this nation, who under some behavior have been put down by that side year after year after year as something other than second class citizens. what my bill does, our bill does, is simply say this, there is now a federal -- a ban on federal use of -- use of federal funds for abortions in d.c. there is a ban on local tax dollars being used for abortion
6:38 pm
services. what i do is remove the local ban so that they can have their own debate and decide whether or not they are going to do it. you assume they are going to do it. i don't know. they are going to debate that later. they may not do it. but the federal ban stays in place. so when you say we will now allow taxpayers' dollars, no. the american taxpayer who pays federal dollars will not have a single dollar be used in washington, d.c., for abortion services. but it may be that the tax dollars paid by the local residents of d.c. may be used for that. but we don't know that. so this is not, ladies and gentlemen, a vote on abortion or how you feel about that. it's another form of colonialism. i know a little bit about that. it is about telling people in d.c. you're not equal to the rest of us. we will tell you what to do.
6:39 pm
you can't think for yourself. i'm not the mayor of d.c. i'm not the city council of d.c. they have a mayor, they have a city council. but year after year on issue after issue you pick unfairly on the people who live in the district of columbia. i know there are folks on both sides of the aisle who have very strong feelings about the issue of abortion. i only implore you to look at the issue and understand that you're not voting on whether abortions will be taking place in this country or not. or anywhere or not. there are abortions taking place in d.c. right now. by those people that can have them. it hasn't stopped. these are services that could be granted to them if they wish to.
6:40 pm
so i implore you not think about the issue of abortion but think about the issue of rights of american citizens to conduct their own business and to govern themselves. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 145, line 12, this act may be be cited as the financial services and general government appropriations act, 2010. the chair: under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3170, pursuant to house resolution 645 i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the
6:41 pm
union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3170, pursuant to house resolution 645, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adon'ted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 645, the question of adoption of the amendments will be put engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. tiahrt: in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. tiahrt of kansas
6:42 pm
moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3170 to the committee on appropriations with instructions -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. serrano: mr. speaker, i make a point of order against the motion on the clause 2, rule 21. under they propose to amend a legislative permitted to remain, it does not propose to merely perfect that language but adds further legislation. the instructions would broaden the application of the provision to include the district of columbia funds and would be in order under clause 2 of rule 21 -- would not be in order under clause 2 of rule 21. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the speaker pro tempore: before making a ruling, the chair will request that the clerk continue reading the motion. the clerk: mr. tiahrt of kansas moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3170 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the
6:43 pm
following amendment, page 143, line 8, strike federal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's point of order has been made. does anyone seek to be heard on the point of order? mr. tiahrt: i wish to be heard on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. tiahrt: first of all this is a he are stricks -- restriction of funds on this amendment so i think it should be considered as -- in order. but further we have a constitutional requirement to oversee the expenditure of funds in the district of columbia. we have been -- said that we are side stepping our responsibility -- overstepping our responsibility by becoming mayor and city councilmember for the district of columbia. but in fact we have a constitutional requirement to deal with the finances of the district of columbia. we also have many people who have asked to have an opportunity to reduce the number of abortions. so in your point of order it's very clear that since its a restrucks of funds, since we have had so many people ask for
6:44 pm
a clean vote on this, that i would urge the speaker to make this motion to recommit in order so that we can have this clean up or down vote on the restriction of funds on this spending bill. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member seek to be heard on the point of order? if not the chair is prepared to rule. under settled precedent where legislative language is permitted to remain in general appropriation bill a. germane amendment merely perfecting that language and not adding further legislation is in order. but an amendment affecting further legislation is not in order. the amendment proposed in the instant motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from kansas is unlike like the amendment apress dressed in resident of may 25, 1959, volume 8, chapter 26, section 2211 which held in order as merely perfecting because it simply narrowed the sweep of a limitation in the bill. instead, the precedent of november 15, 1989 recorded in section 1054 of the house rules
6:45 pm
and manual is more pertinent. indeed the 1989 precedent is controlling. in that situation as here a legislative provision applicable to federal funds, a limitation with legislative exceptions was permitted to remain in the general appropriations bill including funding for the district of columbia. an amendment striking the word federal was held to broaden the legislation provision to address district of columbia funds as well. on these premises the chair holds the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit even if it had been considered in the committee of the whole presents a violation of clause 2-c of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. the motion is not in order. . for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. tiahrt: i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the judgment of the chair stand as the judgment of the house? mr. serrano: mr. speaker, i move to tail the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the
6:46 pm
question is on the motion to table. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this shall be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill if rising without further proceedings in recommittle and the motions to suspend the rules on h.res. 476. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
6:50 pm
6:51 pm
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
7:01 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 225. the nays are 195. the motion is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the
7:02 pm
table. the question is on passage of the bill. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. latourette: i have a parliamentary inquiry. half of it is from ohio or illinois. the speaker pro tempore: forgive me. sorry about that. the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. latourette: mr. speaker, this bill has the potential, and it is, causing some angst among a number of people. my question is as a member of the house who happens to be not pleased with the abortion language in the bill relative to the district of columbia, but who is tickled pink about the auto dealer language that's in the bill, how does such a member
7:03 pm
resolve that -- what procedure exists for such a member to come to some accommodation? the speaker pro tempore: the chair can affirm on question of adopting a motion or approving a measure, a member may respond either in the affirmative, in the negative, or as present. a member who favors a proposition votes aye. a member who opposes a proposition votes no. a member who wishes to abstain whether for doubt or resuesal or otherwise may record as present. each member is his or her own counsel on how to resolve a question. mr. latourette: further parliamentary inquirery. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state. mr. latourette: i guess i want to ask why is the present button yellow. the parliamentary inquiry is should the member finds himself in that could he nun drum, choose to insert a statement into the record, where would that appear in the record? the speaker pro tempore: they would appear with the debate on the question.
7:04 pm
the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this shall be 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.]
7:05 pm
7:06 pm
7:07 pm
7:08 pm
7:09 pm
7:10 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219. the nays are 208 with one member present. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from california, ms. watson torques suspend the rules and agree to h.res. 476, as amended, on which the yeas and nays. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 476, resolution celebrating the 30th anniversary of june as black music month. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this shall be a five-minute vote.
7:11 pm
[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.]
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
7:14 pm
7:15 pm
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 418, the nays are zero, twirs being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution
7:18 pm
is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 653, providing for the consideration of the bill h.l. 1018, to amend the wild free roaming horses and burrows act to protect the health of wild, free-roaming horses and burrows and for
7:19 pm
other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. on roll call 571 on the passage of h.r. 317 0 financial services appropriations i was unavoidably detained and would have voted aye. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will appear in the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my co-sponsorship of h.res. 648. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain one-minute requests.
7:20 pm
the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. bordallo of guam from today until wednesday, july 22, for mr. pence of indiana, today, for mr. young of florida, today until 3:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that today following special business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for july 23, mr. jones for july 23, mr. boozman for today, mr. paulson
7:21 pm
for today, and mr. scalise for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following member mace be permitted to address the house for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california. mr. sestak of pennsylvania, ms. captor of ohio, and mr. defazio of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. sestak: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for five minutes.
7:22 pm
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sestak: i rise today to honor a true visionary a world-class intellect and leader of the first order, dr. constantin poppados. his passing has left a void felt in all corners of our nation and his beloved greece. he served as the director of the university, and put him among the longest serving leaders in higher education today. drexel's enrollment grew under him and full-time undergraduate enrollment grew to more than 11,000 students. he led the way to create the drexel university college of medicine, the school of law, and the study online. he also found a partnership
7:23 pm
between drexel university and the university of pennsylvania, an initiative that will help untold numbers of men and women realize their full potential. the pennsylvania institute of technology's new program for veterans of the combat in iraq and afghanistan is another testament to his legacy. beyond academia, he was a champion of local economic development. he helped create select greater philadelphia. he was a founding member of the world trade center of greater philadelphia. he also served in the river development corporation board. during his tenure at drexel university, he had the opportunity to meet with various foreign digny tai tears. in 1997, then president of the people's republic of china then visited drexel university where his son had earned his ph.d. he also had a private audience
7:24 pm
with pope john paul ii of rome. more recently, drexel university was host of the october 2007 democratic presidential campaign debate. he was born in athens in 1946 and did not arrive in the united states until 1969. since his arrival as a student, he's received more than 150 major awards and honors. in addition to these, he acknowledged that the greatest achievement of his life for his marriage of 39 years to the love of his life and the birth of his bright and talented daughter maria. a 2008 drexel graduate. i ask that our chamber and nation pause to acknowledge him, a mast over business, engineering, and academia, and parenthood who in every sense lived the american dream and created the conditions for untold thousands of others to do so as well. i yield back the balance of my time.
7:25 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. poe. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, a texas lawman has been killed in the line of duty. he was from baytown, texas. shane thomas debt wiler was a sheriff's deputy in chambers county and a remarkable family man. he was 31 years of age. shane was killed monday of this week while investigating another shooting in an area mobile home park. a meter reader reported shots were fired at her when she went to shut off water service and shane was shot and killed when he responded to the call at this mobile home.
7:26 pm
he was gunned down upon entering the mobile home. after a long standoff, the shooter, gilbert ortiz jr., shot and killed himself and over 100 explosives were later found in his residence. shane's wife, trish detwiler said shane loved to spend time with their three kids, two sons and a daughter. trish is an english teacher at barbers hill high school. today, some of her students who belong to future farmers of america, the f.f.a., happened to be in town and came by and visited me. trish said shane would get up late at night with the children and make dinner for the whole family late at night. trish along with shane's parents, tom and cheryl, said shane had a sense of adventure and eagerness to try new things. he was a certified scuba diver and he was about to tackle spear fishing.
7:27 pm
he wasn't bosh in texas, but he got there as fast as he could. he was born in ohio in 1977 and moved to texas when he was 4 years of age. he met trish when they were both in the third grade at cypress fairbanks independent school district, which is north of houston. shane played soccer, was a cub scout and played trumpet in the high school band. this is a photograph of shane taken not too long ago. shane joined the united states army when he was 17. his mom sheryl had to sign the papers, but she said he really wanted to be a soldier. he rose to the rank of staff sergeant in the united states army, served in korea in 1998 and 1999. when he got back home to texas, he earned a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from sam houston state university in 2 1/2 years, graduating summa cum
7:28 pm
laude. he became a game warden, that's him in his game warden uniform. he earned the nickname superman from his fellow game wardens because he excelled at everything he did. in 2005 he left for a year-long tour of duty in iraq when his oldest boy was three weeks of age. he served as a counterintelligence special agent for the 3 1st military intelligence battalion. he earned the bronze star in the global -- and the global war on terrorism service medal. after his tour in iraq, he came home in texas to his game warden job and then became a chambers county sheriff's deputy two months ago. the job with the sheriff's department allowed him to spend more time with his family he worked the night shift until last month. this young lawman's death is particularly tragic because he leaves behind such young children. his family pastor said it's been particularly
7:29 pm
heartbreaking. he said, i asked his wife how she was doing and she said, only my 4-year-old will remember who their father was. that's very sad. mr. speaker, the men and women who serve this country as lawmen and soldiers make great sacrifices to guard the safety and security of this great nation and our communities. they risk their very lives in that service every day. their families made great sacrifices as well so today we pay tribute to the extraordinary young man called shane. with so much life ahead of him and his young family who suffers the loss of a wonderful man. this nation and the state of texas owe shane and his family an immeasurable debt of gratitude for those in favor say aye sacrifice. my fellow texan, who also represents southeast texas, dr. ron paul, and i express our sympathies he will be borrow -- buried tomorrow.
7:30 pm
he fought bad guys in iact and back home he fought them as well. he did double service protecting the people. he was quite a person. he was the best that america has. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. watson. . for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. watson: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognizeder for five minutes. ms. watson: mr. speaker, i rise today to commend the energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and labor committees for working diligently on america's affordable health choices act. this bill is a historic first step to moving towards providing affordable health care options for all americans. comprehensive health care coverage will cost taxpayers initially. the current c.b.o. estimate projects a government investment of $1 trillion over the next 10
7:31 pm
years, but we must not forget that this investment in the health of of americans is not about the cost but about the savings for american families. streamlining administrative costs may save medicare $500 billion according to c.b.o. estimates. providing the public plan with ability to negotiate for medicare rates will increase those savings. advocates for laisez faire economics have continually noted, competition drives down cost and spurs innovation. with the public plan, we are finally giving the government a tool to reduce the cost of health care for americans. for years insurance companies have monopolized the market and driven up costs for consumers. in many communities the only available health option can
7:32 pm
impose astounding rates that consumers are forced to pay. the public plan will introduce fair price competition, forcing private insurers to keep a pace with efficiency and innovation. with the public plan, we offer americans personal patient choice and the freedom to stay healthy. the americans affordable health choices act provides 97% of americans with health care options. however border states such as my own, california, will continue to experience many of the same problems in their busy hospitals. the state of california is home to 22% of the nation's undocumented immigrants. it is true that many of these immigrants will continue to travel to mexico for care. but will also continue to enclosing emergency rooms resulting -- clog emergency rooms resulting in exuberant
7:33 pm
costs due to emergency care. we cannot run down cost in states like california without addressing this issue. we must provide hospitals with a mechanism for recovering these costs. in addition to the public plan, the house's affordable health choices act introduces improvement to both medicare and medicaid. individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for an expanded and improved medicare. this will ensure more children remain healthy. improving rebates to seniors will help close the medicare part d doughnut hole and ensure that they do not have to decide between purchasing food or their medications. this bill has taken many steps to improve medicare and the care
7:34 pm
we provide to seniors. however we must remember that improving care for seniors is not the same as long-term care. if california does not fix its budget crisis by august, residents will lose many medicare and medicaid benefits such as home care for seniors and the disabled. the house health care bill does not address this problem. providing the option for home care is another way in which to reduce cost and allow seniors to keep their freedom and is something we should strongly consider. again, america's affordable health choices act is certainly an impressive first step. we must be careful not to weaken a national public plan and equally encourage our senate colleagues to support a robust national public plan. though local co-ops are state
7:35 pm
level systems may seem to offer savings and freedoms for the american people, they raise a host of problems. duplicating public plans in various locales raise administrative cost. it creates too many levels of bureaucracy that are not simply -- that are simply not necessary. therefore i support the house version of americans affordable health choices act. i truly hope this is the historic first step on the road to making health care f all americans possible. mr. speaker, i look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and i yield back the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. jones from new york. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. jones: i ask unanimous consent that i speak for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five
7:36 pm
minutes without objection. mr. jones: tonight i'm on the floor to express my thanks to the united states marine corps. on april 8, 2000, the late lieutenant colonel john a. breaux, and late major brooks groove of jacksonville, north carolina, were the marine pilots of an m-22 os pre-- osprey that crashed in arizona. the mishap occurred during a training mission as part of a test phase to determine the aircraft's operational suitability for the marine corps. 17 other marines were killed in the crash. from that day until tonight, i have worked with many aviation experts in the corps and outside the corps who helped me reach the conclusion that these pilots were not at fault for this crash. unfortunately many inaccurate reports have characterized the cause of the mishap as pilot error. to set the record straight, in 2009 i asked the marine corps to
7:37 pm
include in the official military personnel files of lieutenant colonel breaux and major grubea -- gruba a memo which exonerates them for the mishap. the memo includes 17 facts regarding the crash which were developed based on my review of official investigations and public records, as well as extensive discussions with aviation experts. the evidence shows that the fatal factor in the crash was the aircraft's lack of a vortex ring state warning system. and that pilot's lack of critical training regarding the extreme dangers of v.r.s. onset in the os pre-- osprey. the lieutenant and major are dishonored by the assertion that the aircraft -- their crew were at fault for this fatal crash. mr. speaker, i'm grateful that the marine corps has accepted the relevance of these facts and on february 20, 2009, they
7:38 pm
included my memo in the personnel files of these two marines. to finally bring this tragedy to a conclusion and to remove the stigma that has been unfairly attached to these two pilots, i have asked the navy to do the right thing. as the marine corps did the right thing, and include this memo in the official safety investigation report on this mishap. mr. speaker, at this time i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record my letter to rear admiral a.j. johnson dated june 11, 2009, which includes my request and the 17 facts about the crash. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: thank you, mr. speaker. as of this evening i have not yet received a response to this letter. and again i want to state that i wrote admiral johnson on june 11, 2009, and as of this time i have not received a response. i'm very disappointed.
7:39 pm
mr. speaker, i hope the navy will follow the example of the marine corps and help properly honor the sacrifice of these brave pilots who save their lives -- gave their lives in the service of their country w that i ask god to continue to bless our men and women in uniform in iraq and afghanistan. i would ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq, and will i ask god three times, please god, please god, please god continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. burton. >> i ask unanimous consent to consume the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. speaker, thank you. unfortunately here we go again. yet another attempt to expand the power of the federal government and to intrude further in america's business. just a like with cap and trade that was forced upon members without proper consideration, here comes another bill from the energy and commerce committee.
7:40 pm
this time it's h.r. 2749, the food safety enhancement act of 2009. i do believe that we -- our nation has the safest food supply system in the world, but -- i also agree we should continue to examine that supply system to make certain that we continue to improve upon it. however h.r. 2749 will not make us a better food safety country. instead it will expand the federal bureaucracy and impose unnecessary cost on a struggling ag economy. this legislation represents a dramatic shift in federal policy that could, just like cap and trade, devastate agriculture. this legislation was considered by the energy and demers committee -- commerce committee just a couple weeks ago. now just like the cap and trade the democrat leadership wants to buy pass the expertise of the committee on agriculture and bring this bill to the floor, this time under suspension of the rules. no further consideration, no markup by other committees of
7:41 pm
jurisdiction, no amendments. just a vote. one provision of 2749 that is of particular concern is section 103. this section would require the u.s. food and drug administration to set on farm performance standards. for the first time we would have the federal government telling our farmers and branch ranchers how to grow crops and raise livestock. the cultivation of crops and production of food animals is an immensely complex endeavor involving a vast ranges of processes. we raise a multitude of crops and livestock in numerous regions using various methods. imagine if the federal government is allowed to dictate how all that is done. chaos will ensue. unfortunately that's what h.r. 2749 allows. those who have never been on a farm will be allowed to tell a producer how to conduct his or her operations. we will not improve food safety by allowing -- usda by allowing the food and drug administration to tell our farmers what to do.
7:42 pm
we'll improve food safety by allowing farmers and ranchers to do something that they and their ancestors have been doing for generations. there are other problems with this bill as well. new penalties, record keeping requirements, traceability, registration mandates, user fees, all things that do nothing to prevent food-borne diseases or outbreaks but do plenty to keep regulators busy and increase costs. i raise these concerns today in hearing of the house agriculture committee that was reviewing food safety. the witnesses representing the f.d.a. tried to reassure the committee by telling us not to worry. they knew what they were doing and would consult with the department of agriculture. however f.d.a. has no expertise in crop and livestock production rack tisses -- practices and i have little confidence the f.d.a. will work with the usda. a recent example of f.d.a.'s unwillingness to access the expertise of the usda was demonstrated this week involving another bill, h.r. 1549, that would restrict, eliminate, the use of animal antibiotics.
7:43 pm
it would institute a ban on nontherapeutic uses ever antibiotics which is another ill-conceived concept and very -- that's a very complex issue. yet we learn today that no consultation by f.d.a. has occurred with usda. in a hearing earlier this week, before the house rules committee, the f.d.a. suddenly shifted its course and supported this ban. no new research or scientific analysis was presented, and again apparently no consultation with usda. so much for collaborating with the department of agriculture. mr. speaker, we must stop rushing legislation through congress without careful, thoughtful, and complete consideration. congress rarely gets things right when we have ample time to properly consider policy changes. but it never makes good decisions when rushed to arbitrary timetables. h.r. 2749 needs to be referred to the committee on agriculture to allow necessary improvements to this food safety bill that will actually improve the food
7:44 pm
safety of our country and not shut down agriculture. we do not need f.d.a. from farm to fork. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. kaptur. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. boozman: i ask permission to claim her time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. i share the views of my constituents of the third district of arkansas that we need health care reform. i believe all americans deserve access to quality, affordable health care, but the one-size-fits all experiment won't give hardworking americans like melissa the peace of mind that she and her family deserve when seeking medical treatment. melissa is all too familiar with doctor's offices. her son requires special medical treatments every three months that her insurance helps pay for. she's grateful to have insurance help cut the cost of these beneficial procedures, and told
7:45 pm
me if her family didn't have insurance, finding the money to cover the cost would be very difficult. but she would rather scrape her pennies together and make sacrifices on her own to pay for her son's health care rather than have someone else decide treatment on his behalf. . we need to preserve the doctor-patient relationship melissa and millions of americans rely on this allows patients to choose what suits their individual requirements rather than washington bureaucrats. politicians making decisions about health care needs is a prescription for disaster. instead of taking away choice, we need to offer more opportunities for patients. we need patient-centered health care that allows them to get the treatments and care they need when they need it. the obama prescription will deny patients treatments and make them wait to get the treatments they're allowed to receive.
7:46 pm
recently, my mother needed to have the battery changed in her pacemaker. she's 88 years old, she's the wise and caring grandmother and mother and great grandmother to her family. with government-run health care, after taking $500 billion from the medicare program to help pay for the new plan, it's not a given that she would have gotten the treatment when she needed it at the proper time. this is not the standard of care i want, it's not the standard of care melissa want, and it's not the standard of care 90% of my constituents, who have taken my online survey, want. we need a plan that reduces health care costs, expands access and improves the quality of care. the obama plan doesn't improve those geels. we need to be asking the
7:47 pm
presidented on the authors of this plan such things as will this allow illegal aliens act stose health care? there's nothing in the bill that says no. we need to ask about the elderly. people that in the past have enjoyed access to cataract surgery to restore their vision. access to artificial hips, artificial needs to increase their mobility in a timely fashion. will this plan allow that sort of care to continue? those are the things we need to be working on, and certainly to cry trie to cram this down the american public's throat in two weeks is not workable. luckily we still have time to get this right. let's work together and make patient care the top priority of our reform. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. defazio. mr. forbes. mr. dreier.
7:48 pm
mr. paulson. mr. scalise. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker, i request to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: today in the energy and commerce committee, we started having hearings on president obama and speaker pelosi's bill, the proposal to create a government takeover of he health care system. i think the components of this bill and some of the things that have been talked about need to be discussed here on this house floor because the bill itself will actually lead to rationing of health care for americans across this country. the bill will absolutely raise taxes on every american in this country, and every small business in this country. in fact, there are over $580 billion in new taxes in this
7:49 pm
bill. this bill was just filed earlier this week. the congressional budget office hasn't even been able to do a full assessment of it. there was a meeting held yesterday in the energy and commerce committee with the c.b.o. unfortunately, that meeting, the chairman decided that that meeting would be held in secret. he did not allow the media to come in. he didn't allow the public to have access through the internet or through television to see what the head of the c.b.o. had to say. maybe if somebody support this is government takeover, i can see why they might want to try to hide the public from the details because the details that start to come out are showing the true cost to the american people. and the true dangers of going into this government takeover of our health care system. i think the people ought to know what those details are. i think when you're talking about a bill this massive a bill that is so enormous, probably one of the biggest transformations of government,
7:50 pm
and an administration that's had many, many attempts to try to take over our life. this may be the biggest one. they've got a chart we put together that shows the organizational structure of this new government takeover. if government is allowed to take over the health care system, based on the bill that president obama and the speaker and our top lieutenants here in this house and the senate have filed, this is the structure of what government-run health care would look like. so there are a number of points that i think are important to go through. you hear president obama talking a lot about if you have the health care you like you get to keep it. now that sounds great. i agree with that. the problem is, the bill that president obama and speaker pelosi and others filed takes away your health care and allows a government czar. unfortunately, they've create sod many czars, the government is running insurance companies and banks right now, running
7:51 pm
car companies, and the government is not doing a good job of it. now the government wants to run the health care system in this country. if you look at this organizational chart, you see a lot of federal agencies interfering in the relationship between a patient and their dr. these are people saying that government won't tell you when you can go see your doctor. everywhere in this organizational chart and everywhere in their thousand-plus page bill, they're giving this new health care czar the ability and power to interfere between the relationship of a patient and their doctor. if you like a health care plan you have, there's actual language in this bill that allows this health care czar that's created, give this is government bureaucrat in washington, the power to tell your company, you like your health care, the government can now take away, literally disqualify, your government's health care plan from being eligible, and force you onto
7:52 pm
the government run plan. they have tax this is a cover all different aspects of life. they tax businesses. $583 billion in taxes on working people in this country. there's actual, and this was verified yesterday by the congressional budget office, $29 billion, with a b, billion dollars in now taxes on uninsured people. now the real irony of that is the real reason that they're bringing this bill, over 300 americans participate in health care today, and there is a number of uninsured people. some say the number is 45 million, others narrow it down when you remove the illegal aliens or people who choose not to get health care, the number has been honed down to about seven million people. that's a number we should address. health care needs to be reformed. there are a lot of bipartisan approaches to reform that system. but you reform something that's
7:53 pm
broken. you don't blow up the whole system that's working. in america, we've got probably the best medical care in the world. people who have government-run systems like canada, like england, the citizens that have the means actually come to america to get care. because our system is so good. even with the flaws. let's address those flaws. you don't set up a system like this. some byzantine system of bureaucrats and czars that are going to tell you which doctor you can see to take over our health care system. so unfortunately, we've got a debate started, hopefully the public gets involved in this, because when you look at the taxes, $29 billion of taxes on uninsured people when the bill was supposed to be designed to address uninsured. when you look at small businesses, the impact on small businesses, middle class family, they allow taxes on people making less than $50,000. this is a bill that needs important debate. hopefully people will look at
7:54 pm
details and i can yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the physical following communications. the speaker pro tempore: to the congress -- the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202d of the national emergencies act provides for the termination of a national emergency unless prior to the anniversary of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and states to congress that the emergency is to continue beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this, i have sent to the federal register the enclosed notice that the measures dealing with the former lie breern regime of charles taylor are to continue beyond union 22, 2009. the actions of charles taylor and others, their unlawful depletion of liberian reseriouses and their removal
7:55 pm
from liberia and secreting of liberian funds continue to affect liberia and its administrative and economic institutions and resources. these actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons, i have determined it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to the former liberian regime of charles taylor. signed, barack obama, the white house, july 16, 2009. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. my name is keith ellison, i'm appearing on behalf of the progressive caucus, which is coming again to the house floor, mr. speaker, to discuss a progressive vision for
7:56 pm
america, a vision of america that has a central focus of american quality of life being better for all people. that has the central focus of the welfare of americans being better than it was before. in the progressive caucus, mr. speaker, we have a set of values which say that yes, we can live in harmony with the planet earth. yes, we can engage in activity that will allow all americans to have health care. yes, we can have civil rights for all people, yes, america can be a party and a member in the global village in which we promote peace and in which we stand with nations who are struggling to emerge around the world. the progressive vision for america, the progressive vision that says that the greatest points of our nation's history were when we passed the law for civil rights for all people. a progressive vision where we said the wagner act, where
7:57 pm
workers will have rights was a great moment in american history. a progressive vision where we put together the resources necessary to pull america out of the great depression and into a greater level of rights, greater level of prosperity and a greater level of community. tonight, we're talking about health care. i hope to be joined by my colleagues soon, but i want to set out that this is the congressional progressive message, mr. speaker, if anybody wants to communicate with us, do so at cps.grijalva. house.gov. very important people know how to get in touch with us. s the progress i message where we come every week on the house floor to talk about a progressive vision. health care is the topic. health care is the issue in front of the american people today. health care is what everybody is talking about here on capitol hill. and this is the progressive
7:58 pm
message. we'll talk about a progressive vision for america. mr. speaker, i'm using these boards to help illustrate a point. but the main concept here as we talk about the progressive vision for america's health care, we want to start out with a central idea. and that is, care should be the watch word. we should be talking about care. not who pays, not who doesn't pay, care. we should be talking about not all the complicated mechanisms first, we'll get to that. it's time to talk about that. and that will be a good and appropriate time to raise these more complicated issues. but the first thing we start with as we talk about the progressive vision is care. health care. care should be where we start, care should be how we end. if we care for each other as americans, if we regard all
7:59 pm
americans as essential and important we will construct a health care system and bring forth health care reform which makes sense for everybody. which costs less than this system does now because this system is not driven by care, it's driven by something else, which i'll get to in a moment. we also have to have in this health care reform package a public option. but when i use the word public option, what i mean is a we're-all-in-this-together option. a public option says, we will have a public option, together with private options, in which the public can say, look, i want to select that public option because it works for me and my family or my business and that's what people can take advantage of. there will be private options in the public -- in the system, in the exchange, but this health care reform starts with the idea of care and states that the public option, which will be included in this health care refbi

251 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on