honorable the speaker house of representatives madam this is to notify you formally pursuant to roll eight of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the superior court of orange county california for testimony in a criminal case after consultation with the office of general counsel i determine that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedents and privileges of the house signed sincerely kathleen hollandsworth district director pursuant to house resolution five forty seven in rule eighteen the chair declares the house and the committee of the whole house and state of the union for further consideration of h r thirty forty three well the gentle lady from california  the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h r thirty forty three which the clerk will report by title a bill making appropriations for the departments of labor health and human services and education and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september thirtieth two thousand and eight and for other purposes when the committee of the whole rose on the legislative day of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand seventh member number thirty one printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from texas ms jackson lee had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page one twenty five line to to explain to the members of the house where we stand where we have i believe nineteen amendments still pending to this bill four of those amendments w take at least half an hour and perhaps significantly longer when you add the slippage time  those debate minutes if every member exercises his right to offer the amendments that are filed we could be here for another eight hours on this bill i know members and trying to kick you catch their planes i will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible i would appreciate it if everyone else would do the same and if there are those members who can be persuaded  forgo offering an amendment or two that would be helpful also in terms of any members who are who are trying to catch planes in the ice i think that by now we are well aware of what people's philosophical ideas are about this bill and i would appreciate it if members could extend enough courtesy to their colleagues so that our colleagues especially those on the west coast w be able to make their plane without staying in town overnight and with that i yield back the balance of my new surely we have to deal thank you chairman i certainly would like to echo his sentiments regarding the time available to us to complete the bill and in the ability of members to get home and let me just offer a modest proposal this is not there is a unanimous consent request but i just ask that that the authors consider the possibility that there are four four across the board cuts proposed for the bill different percentage amounts and there's two hours allocated for that debate seemingly  an hour's worth of debate to determine whether or not there was a majority of votes in the chamber to cut this bill across the board by the twenty five percent point two five percent or four point six percent seemingly one hour would be enough time to debate as opposed to two so that decision has been made but as the chairman suggested people may think differently as we move on to the debate about the possibility of spending less time then offered by mr westmoreland of georgia at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following night of the fund made and they all under this act may be used by the department of education to publish or process the free application of federal student aid in a language other than english chrisman to the letter of the house on wednesday july eighteenth the gentleman from georgia to westmoreland and a member says it will control five minutes the chair recognizes gentleman from georgia thank you madam chair when a student decides to go to college many families gather all their financial records and sit down to fill out the free application for federal student a or the feis form now to be eligible to receive federal student aid a student must meet certain eligibility requirements importantly one of those requirements is that the student be a u s citizen or eligible non citizen basically a legal permanent resident they also have to have a house cue diploma or a ged and be enrolled or accepted at a school that participates in the federal student loan a proton given these requirements it would be expected that a citizen or legal permanent resident that is a high school graduate ged holder and has been accepted as a student at an institution of higher education would be able to complete the fossa in english however the us department of education clearly does not think so i have a higher opinion of our education system than that and i believe a student that m eligibility requirements will be proficiency in english to complete this form in english when i learn that this free federal student application form is available for completion in either english or spanish opic kane concern that others don't share my opinion of the capabilities of education system even more disturbing there's a presumption that the federal government would be subsidized as in the college education of an individual that does not have the proficiency in english to fill out the form to get free federal assistance so colleagues my memory is simple it will prevent the department of education from providing or processing the free application for student loan assistance form in any language other than english with the requirements for obtaining student assistance it is not an imposition to ensure that our tax dollars go to students there are clearly ready to a se chairwoman i wonder how any of us would like to have our future decided by people we've never met or never even seen on the basis of those people having a ten minute conversation without me being present i don't think any of us like that very much and yet that's what the gentleman is asking us to do the gentleman in effect is asking us to pass it on one hundred fifty thousand students who applied for student financial assistance last year using the spanish version of the application form those students would automatically be denied financial aid with no demonstrably proof that they were illegal aliens only that they felt more comfortable applying in spanish now i want every american or i want every person who comes to this country to learn english i think english is the cement at least i hope our values are the cement that holds his country together but i think that english is a great tool to strengthen that cement but i really would simply suggest that first of all this is the wrong venue the appropriations committee has held no hearings on this matter so far as i know the gentleman has held no hearings on this matter he may have very strong opinions i do too but both of our opinions may be irrelevant when we discover what the facts are the fact is if something like this is going to happen if we're going to make decisions that affect people's career possibilities just for the heck of it it would be nice if we thought about it rather than jumped on to the nearest cement a slogan masquerading as an amendment and so i would strongly urge that of this house show a sense of fairness and a sense of restraint and decline to support the gentleman's amendment at least until we've had hearings thank you madam chair i would hope that all of our colleagues would oppose this this amendment the the this the student loan application that's in question here the criticism of it and the concern with it is not because it's printed in spanish or english the really criticism is that it's so complicated the families have an incredibly difficult time in filling out this form our committee has been working mr emanuel and others have been working to try to simplify this form to make it useful this form of someone has more questions than if you went to the world bank to get a loan but to now suggest that a student may be denied access to a loan of the family they be denied access to financial support for that education soley on the basis of whether or not the parents speak english they fill out the form right and whether or not the form is printed in spanish you know the old saying i'm here from the federal government here to help you this has nothing to do with the parent status nothing to do with the status it's a question of whether or not we make some effort to reach out to these individuals to make it easier for them to fill out the forms that are necessary for their for their for their young people there for their children to go on to college and have financial resources to do that the question of whether it's printed in spanish not is simply now arbitrary and as with they if they if they don't fill out the form correctly if they have to do it with it with theirs with their child or somebody else trying to interpret the question to interpret the answers to them i think that's incredibly unfair to people who are here in this country they're here legally they don't have they don't happen to speak english and they may need this assistance what we know about people trying to learn english is that in every city in every part of this country where there are classes that teach english there oversubscribed they have they have waiting this because these people understand that english is the language of this of this country it's a currency of the country it's the means by which you get ahead in this country and that's whether they want their children to learn english to now come along and say that we're going to make it more difficult based upon this characteristic that has nothing to do with your with your qualifications for the financial assistance with the qualifications of your child to go to school what they what they've accomplished with their lives i think is outrageous and arbitrary and i like the you know one minute to the gentleman from california mr mr honda and the gentleman the gentleman is recognized thank you very much as an barrier many parents feel embarrassed that they can help their you do youngsters and this is only enhance that if in our system that we're looking to encourage children to go to school and pursue higher education this would be but  barrier and i'm sure that you don't want young kids to be not going to a public education system and apply for these kinds of systems i have a soft them and we have fortune five hundred companies in this country and i just bought a phone and in the instruction manuals struction are not only in english but it's also in spanish french and german the most the reason why fortune five hundred is doing this it's about customer satisfaction and if this government is about satisfying those who are here in this country whose citizens who are taxpayers then we should be also looking at this kind of a mentality thank you  that's i think that the gentleman makes a point this is about american citizens who are here who are paying taxes whose children have done well enough to go on to college they're seeking the financial resources to do that and they may not speak english and this is a service that we provide to those individuals so that they can actually fill out a form they can understand the form they can understand the liabilities that they're taking on they can understand the qualifications to arbitrarily come along until one one group of citizens based upon  this question of whether or not they speak english they will be able to have the same access to these resources as others or not seems to me to be very unfair very un american promotes a set of values that really aren't consistent with the values  in this country and it really is about whether or not the federal government is in the business of looking at looking at the people they're trying to serve as customers people who should be served i would hope that we would oppose this amendment we continue to struggle to try to make this form comprehensible to those who speak english and understanding wish and i think to make it more difficult now for those who don't is a very poor service to that part of american society and i would urge opposition to this amendment quite interestingly answers first of all is doesn't have anything to do with k through twelve and i as far as you buying your phone for it mr chairman as far some by buying a phone this got instructions in three or four different languages they may be sold in different countries i don't have any idea but the federal government didn't buy that phone for you to use now here's the thing we're talking about student aid free aid going to someone who is fixing to go to college that is a legal resident here either a citizen or a legal resident all we are saying is if you're going to ask the american taxpayers to pay for your financial assistance that you'd just be proficient anough in the language of this country to fill out the application now you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out and we can throw all these other little things in there about the people that won't get to apply and blah blah blah blah blah doesn't matter all this amendment says is if you're going to ask the federal government to help with financial aid for your college education that we hope you succeed in in that we want you to fix sailin that you can at least speak the language of this country that's all we're saying and this is a very simple amendment there's so been so much rhetoric over there i guess you know there's you know evidently they're taking this for something that is not very simple mr chairman very very simple do we want to make sure that our taxpayers dollars go to students who are legal citizens of this country who have a ged or a high school education that are applying for financial aid to go to a college in this country to be a fish in a nothing english field the application in english is very simple and  right to strike the last wor of the appropriations committee is trying to get as many of these amendments out the way as you can but i certainly hope that the moc colleagues and especially all the colleagues who are interested in protecting the hard taxpayers dollars for this country and who are interested in getting its many students financial aid that need it that have the best opportunity to go forward in succeed in their college education in spend the money wisely that they would support this the committee will now rise informally to receive a message that the house will be in order the chair will receive the message as to speak or a message from the present act of the united states mr speaker madam secretary i'm directed that president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing to the committee will resume it sitting for purposes gentleman from georgia ari pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand and seven the judges from i should be the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed will each control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia i mr chairman i would like to thank district done everything right when it comes to coding and short of medicare just cut the punish the hospital before they are done anything if what i have done anything wrong two hundred and sixty nine members of the house feel the same amendment this amendment prevents the senator senator from medicare and medicaid services from cutting twenty four billion dollars in funding for our local hospitals funding its use provide care to seniors disabled under medicare my district alone this would mean a loss of sixty million dollars in reimbursements for my local hospitals have a devastating effect on the quality of care a key misstep in the proposed rule is a two point four percent so called behavior offset payment cut c m s proposes cut to eliminate what the agency is inaccurately claimed will be the effect of greater use of coding as hospitals move to a new system these extreme cuts and reimbursements based on speculation rather than fact will impose an added burden on all hospitals earlier this year my friend  lewis ny circulated a letter in opposition to these draconian cuts the response was overwhelming with two hundred sixty nine members of this house going on the record against this devastating cut to our local hospitals this overwhelming bipartisan opposition to this bad adjustments made for coding changes we've based on the actual experiences of hospital not mere conjecture i asked my colleagues to join us in bipartisan support of this effort to prohibit the use of any funds to implement these  rule that will place hospitals under a new financial burden compromising the quality of care our constituents deserve in order to prevent these local hospitals and protect our constituents i asked my colleagues to vote in a bipartisan yes thank you mr speaker  one of the amendment this is another proposed c m s rule bottom line is this our american hospitals and health care delivery system has to provide health care to our citizens c m s plays a major role in helping us to do that and to contain costs but c m s government representative has to be a partner of our deliverers the hospital's not an adversary and that requires that they give more than two months notice they give a heads up to hospitals when they're going to change a rule that has the direct immediate impact of changing revenue streams for our hospitals this amendment of paragraph one like paragraph two simply delays the implementation so that there will be a heads are the question now is is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia those in favor signify by saying i those opposed say no and the pin of the chair the eyes have it and the gentleman's question  the gentleman from wisconsin mr chairman i have a minute desk clerk will please designate a moment and then the number twenty six printed in the congressional record offered by mr ryan in wisconsin wisconsin reserves a point of order on the amendment as i wonder if i could ask the gentleman a question would in the interest of saving time help members get to their planes with the general and be willing to forgo extended comment of yeah except the amendment yes i just would like to be have but one minute to explain the man and then i'd be happy to yield time from wisconsin mr ryan is recognized one minute i appreciate the chairs indulgence and i will just take a moment to explain what this woman does then i'll yield back the balance of my time there is a recent troubling report entitled c d c off center which was produced under the direction of senator coburn with a report and this in the senate government affairs committee instead of using its resources to fight life threatening diseases like hiv aids and cancer the c d c has instead spent money and needless luxury items and non government functions for example the c d c is office of health and safety recently provided its employees with a new extra fitness center that includes such items as rotating pastel mood lights zero gravity chairs thirty thousand dollar dry heat saunas the c d c has also spent over one point seven million dollars on a hollywood liaison to advise t v shows like e r and house on medical information including in their programming clearly an expense that should have been covered by the successful for profit television shows not by our hard earned tax dollars they also further squander taxpayer dollars in an office intended to help improve employee morale this program which currently cost two hundred fifty thousand dollars per year as he'll to just ninety eight complaints since it was created last year at this rate it is costing taxpayers about three thousand dollars per complaint despite the program's lack of use the c d c is planning on spending at least one million dollars more to expand it in a time we are facing increasing risk of bioterrorism and disease these are hardly the best use of taxpayer dollars my image simply would ensure that the c d c would not be able to spend any more federal funding on these three boondoggle described above and it is my hope that we can get that c d c focused on doing its job which is very important they do a good job on that and not on these kinds of boondoggles this report shows dozens of examples of these abuses and i appreciate the chair for his indulgence in the acceptance of the amendment with that i yield back the balance of my time the gentleman yells back the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin those in seven the gentleman from michigan and a member of paul's will each control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan thank you mr thayer with the gentleman yield i'll yield denied because we're trying to get members out of here for their planes private except the general was a member no no in the opinion of the chair the eyes have it and the members adopted l to the author of the house today july eighteenth two thousand and seven the gentleman from new jersey and a member of polish control five minutes the chair now recognize your will i reserve a point of order or we're not sure which a man look this is without objection the clerk will report the amendment memon offered by mr garrett of new jersey page one twenty five after line to insert the following section five twenty two none of the funds made available in this act may be used to send or otherwise pay for attendance of more than fifty employees from a federal department or agency at any single conference occurring outside of the united states is the gentleman from wisconsin continued to reserve his point of order no i withdraw says to set priorities when we have agent federal agencies send federal employees overseas for conferences we should put a really realistic limitation on it this one i think does at fifty employees for any federal department agency any single conference occurring outside the united states again i appreciate the chairman's acceptance of the amendment and with that i will yield back then the balance of my time the gentleman yield back the question is on the amendment off five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey was a gentleman you will yield again same deal if if we accept the moment we're trying to help get people out of here i will i will just extend that thirty does as we've said all along is to set priorities and it does and two areas that are extremely important to the fifty rational district and the state of new jersey and the entire nation as well and that is that we set priorities by increasing funding into very important areas one is to the national cancer institute for additional cancer research by ten million dollars and another extreme importance this state in new jersey where the rising number of children being born with autism to a directed additional ten million dollars for research in that area is there as well let's give these couples to take this one in one hundred fifty children one in one hundred fifty children used to be one around ten thousand is now diagnosed with autism every day sixty seven children are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder which translates into a new case almost every twenty minutes autism is becoming the fastest growing serious developmental disability in the united states it was a purpose for putting in these amendments and i thank the chairman for agreeing with us to the importance and seeing that additional funds go to these very worthy causes and with that i will yield back the balance of my time recognition the gentleman from california writes i have an amendment at the desk number sixty one mr chairman the clerk will please designate the men men number sixty one printed in the congressional record offered by mr campbell of california pursuant to the house the author of the house earmark two hundred thousand dollars for the andre agassi college preparatory academy in las vegas nevada now let me explain mr chairman i i know that the lady from nevada is here and i have and i believe the gentleman from nevada also are are supportive of this what this amendment is not about is about the merits of this particular academy or whether this is i understand a charter school whether it's a good school or not i received a call yesterday from the director of the andre agassi foundation who has provided a lot of the funding for this school inviting me to come to the school in august and to see what they're doing and see it tour and that's very nice and very flattering but that actually isn't the point i'm sure it's a very fine school i'm sure it's doing lots of great work but my understanding is is that this school is at least half if not more than that funded by charitable donations including from mr agassi and from one of the las vegas casinos and lots of other people and what what i raise this about is whether we should be using earmarks to give out like this to what are essentially charitable works now i'm sure there are many other good schools in now that there are many in my area sure there are fin museums i'm sure there are fine research facilities i'm sure there are all kinds of different things that we could spend federal money on but i don't think that when the taxpayers pay their taxes that they intend that part of that is a repository for us as members of congress any of us as members of congress to delve into that money go out and say this is a charitable organization which i find worthy in my district and here's the taxpayers money for that from me because it's not from me it's not from the member of congress it's the taxpayers money and i think we are better off leaving the taxpayers with their own money so they can give it to whatever charitable organizations schools museums historical developments research that they feel they should and i just don't feel that it is our right as members of congress to hand this money out no matter how beneficial or how worthy the cause is to hand this out to to various charities that we deem in our district the gentle lady from nevada i would like to claim time in opposition generally is recognized the five minutes mr chairman i rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment in his misguided high profile example of wasteful federal spending the author of this amendment has instead provided me with an opportunity to sing the praises of a member of my community who has used his personal and professional success to help those that are less fortunate in two thousand and one andre agassi opened a charter school in las vegas the andre agassi college preparatory academy it is in one of the most disadvantaged areas in my congressional district agassi prep currently serves students in grades k through ten with grades eleven and twelve being added in the next two years for a total of six hundred thirty students when enrollment is complete the first will graduate in two thousand and nine the student body is ninety six percent minority this earmark which i thank the gentleman for highlighting would go to the andre agassi prep technology and multi media initiative and will increase the use of computer technology in math science reading and language instructions this is exactly exactly the type of environment we should be encouraging for all of our students in all of our schools andre agassi has been a tireless advocate for this academy and for numerous other philanthropic endeavors including the boys and girls clubs in las vegas raising more than sixty million dollars and contributing a substantial amount of his own money to improve the lives of children youth at risk in my community there is nobody that is done more for people in this community my community that andre agassi the only reason we're talking about this project on the floor today is because a famous name is attached to it but where is my colleague on the other side hopes to find a celebrity asking for federal handouts rather than digging in to his own pocket they've instead he's instead highlighted a model citizen in a leader who has tried to make a difference and convince others to do the same it is one of the fastest growing areas this is a very important earmark i'm proud to take this earmark i will defend it with all my strength and ability and at this time i'd like to yield whatever time is remaining to my colleague from nevada john porter chair recognizes gentleman from of our things chairman i appreciate many memories this body that are looking for ways to eliminate waste fraud and abuse but i'm extremely disappointed that they've chosen this project and i must say i'm afraid that some of my colleagues have really done their homework and i appreciate my friend and colleague from nevada congressman berkeley for stating some of the obvious but this particular program is what we need in america and there's even a web page today that shows this as an example of what's wrong with america i want to stay of the day and say this is what's right with america we need to encourage public private partnerships here's an individual that has adopted a charter school a strong platform of the republican party charter schools it's a public charter school that he has adopted and writes a check to close to three million dollars a year to keep it operating right frankly mr i'm embarrassed this is what's right about america not what's wrong about america this particular school is serving a population that needs our help and assistance we have met here day after day that we're not funding special needs kids anough and we are not this is another example of how we can help this very important population and again as my colleague said from the data this is an example of an individual that is giving up his time of his life to support our community close to sixty million dollars a year he is giving to the community three million of his own money into the school mr chairman i strongly oppose this amendment and i personally am very disappointed this is an example of what's right about america mr agassi has done everything you can to help kids he helps need he need needed kids our child welfare program boys and girls clubs across the community he's not standing there with his hand out he's done it with support so areas in the country if we are full act to rely strictly on formula funding for federal assistance we will always be behind the eight ball we depend and rely on these earmarks in order to keep up with the latest technology and importance of providing for the people that i represent i am sorry that i had to even come down here and defend this earmark i'm proud of it and i yield back the balance of my time generally yields back the gentleman from california thank you mr chairman you know i don't disagree and i'm not in a position to disagree with anything about this school said byers a lady from the vat or the gentleman from nevada again let me reiterate that is not my  point my point is that there are probably many other schools that are worthy there are probably all kinds of health considerations that are where they're probably museums or where they're probably studies or there are all kinds of things that are worthy but the federal government does not traditionally fun charter schools that's not the sort of thing schools are inherently local and state and i think should be and hopefully will continue to be and it's not a federal school and so i just don't think it is it is right about charter schools having been a co author of charter school legislation that in the late ninety's it truly is a federal program we do have funds available through grant processes that help charter schools unfortunately we needed help immediately and this was the way to do it and benefactors earmark isn't even in my district it's adjacent light district in the bad but it is traditional is what we do as a congress another example of why i think members understand their districts better than campbell of california pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand and seven the gentleman from california mr campbell and a member opposed release control five minutes the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california thank you mr chairman  amendment would eliminate a two million dollar earmarked for the charles b wrangle center for public service at the city college of new york new york currently mr chairman the city college of new york does not have  charles b wrangle center for public service the website shows there are sixteen centers of study none of which there mr wrangled name so offensively this two million dollars is going to be creating the charles b wrangle center for public service currently according to the website it appears that most everything dealing with public service careers at the city college of new york currently goes through the coal and power center colin powell center for policy studies which was founded by a grant lee mentions many things but there are a few things that i thought were troubling because amongst the things that it says this center will have are quote a well furnished office for congressman rangle second quote the wrangel librar the wrangel archives and goes on to say quote the wrangel archive this librarian will organize index and preserve for posterity all documents photographs and memorabilia relating to congressman wrangles career  house rules and house rule twenty one clause six says and i quote it shall not be in order to consider a bill joint resolution amendment or conference report that provides for the designation are raised as ignition of a public work in honor of an individual then serving as a member delegate resident commissioner orse sen in other words the rule says that we don't name public works after ourselves as while we are in congress now it's my understanding from the parliamentarian th amendment does not violate the letter of that rule i would argue and argue to my friends in the majority that it would violate the spirit i really do not think this is a road we want to go down where we as members have the ability to create and name things after ourselves using public funds while we are in office if you think about that there are five colleges universe or universities in my district i'm sure if i went to one of them any of them with two million dollars and said let's have the john campbell school of fiscal responsibility i'm sure they would at least listen to that but i don't think that would be right and i don't think that would be good and i don't think that would be proper and i don't believe that this earmark is either and so i would request that my friends on the majority side and the minority side consider before you need jerk oppose this amendment consider what this is opening up for this house and do you really want to open up that we're going to have earmarks to name things after ourselves i reserve the balance of my times to check john reserve for what purpose of the gentleman from new things abundantly clear that this is not only would violate the spirit in which we doing this but sixty years ago charles rangle was a high school dropout on the streets of lenox avenue and the only thing that brings him to this congress is the g i bill and in my community where only four out of ten kids managed to finish high school i've devoted my entire life in working with the public i've devoted my entire life in working with the i've that sector in trying to keep our kids in school and given them the opportunity to get an education the days that we think that education is a local issue over as we move toward globalization has got to be far more important for every young person every person in this country to be exposed to get the education and to compete this is not a question of federal funds being used to start anything the city university came  as what i start a drive to raise the money which you already raised twenty five million dollars in order to do this and all the office things that you're talking about when you talk about archives that means after i leave here and i do hope that there would be an office there as we bring people in to encourage people to get an education to go into public service i cannot think anything that i am more proud of i wish we had more of this type of thing and so it just seems to me as you have seen fit to apply for an earmark here that you understand what it is i've been in office for thirty eight years i don't need any alkaloids my community has given me that my predecessor server twenty six years before me and so i do hope when you start talking about we understand that you can do this but we anxious to make certain that people don't want there's anybody that's given thirty eight years to the congress anybody that was able to go back to high school under the g i bill when they were twenty three anybody spends his time inspiring kids to go to school the stay in school get an education to get married make contributions and anybody's community in a city college that stood on a hill where i had no idea that it was a college when i was a kid since nobody in my family had gone to college anybody they can get this congress to support something like there's a lot that only the success and getting it done but the spirit in which is yield to the gentleman from california because you said that this is not starting this but it does not exist today is that correct sir we have a corporation people are making contributions to the school that's not exist it will be announced in october and i hope my federal government is a part of that as i know my city and states got to be a part of it not because my name is on it i would feel just as strongly about this is what was that but somehow they feel as some people do that my name on it would drive and be able to raise the private funds and so for twenty five million has been raised and i want my government to be a part of that asset the brochure is what is being sold to encourage people including you understand what we're trying to do and what we're going to do what will john heal and i mean really and so do you you don't agree with me or see any problem with us as members sending taxpayer funds in in the creation of things named after ourselves while we are still here i don't know i don't have a problem in and if someone wants to know something am i like the a n c i would have a problem if you did it because i don't think that you've been around long enough that having your name on something to inspire a building like this in the school it might be that it would be in order for you to get publicity and to get reelected but cents i've been here thirty eight years and have not really had any position from the other side it doesn't serve any function for me except to try to get courage people to participate with government local government teachers in order to keep our kids in school so i am proud that the fact that they're using my name in order to create this and it's going to be created as i said if you had gone to th web site you would have got the number you could have gotten in touch with president williams to tell you we've got like the twenty five million and and that would be it so i don't not only i don't see anything wrong but i wish more public serv that have the ability to do this would get involved in this type of thing i think is very important will a gentleman yield is there then a number of years in which someone can have been in congress in which it's you know it is you are then allowed to just think that putting our constituents first is what this place should be all about and putting our country first the gentleman from new york is a distinguished combat veteran and thirty eight years service in this house but we have seen people leave this house to great glory and to even be elected president or ambassador captains of industry and other of our colleagues have gone straight from this chamber to jail and a decision is best made by history the collective wisdom of our rules is that in general we don't name things after ourselves when we are great and powerful but no independent judgment could be leveled i support this project i think this project is a good one but i would just make it clear and i wish i had been better at it that as flatted as i am that they using my name i am thoroughly convinced that the only reason they use in my name is the ability to attract funds to keep this thing going i would require me to be able to remove my name from that i would say that the twenty five million that they raised was in bad faith and the money that they can to raise that i would not lend my name they would never have done this unless i agree that reclaiming my time the gentleman is a very powerful chairman if he supports this project they will come but i worry about setting the precedent of everyone else naming things after themselves the gentleman from california has thirty seconds remaining thank you mr chairman i you know in conclusion that includes in office it cetera i just don't believe that we should the power and authority we have while in office to use taxpayer funds to create monuments to ourselves or to participate in the creation of mine is to ourselves that is just not something that i believe we should be doing and i will the balance of my time  department of labor in the national institutes of health which was previously adopted by voice vote and accepted by the committee i would like to clarify that the amendment does not specify which department of labor programs would be it would  impacted the dobsons that amendment does not create any legislative intent that would require the department of labor to reduce funding for the migrant and seasonal farm worker program you'll back the balance of my time who seeks recognition released control five minutes the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona i thank the chair before talking about this amendment there wasn't time for me to speak on the last one i just wanted to say i don't think it's the road that we want to go down to start naming  facilities or programmes after ourselves just i think that the rules may be a bit vague but they seem clear enough that we shouldn't do that as a gentleman in the dialogue that i heard was you know are you worthy to have something named after you if you just bet a few years does it take thirty eight years what does it take i think it would frankly take a lot more than two million dollars to get any college or university in my district to name something the flights that are for for a myriad reasons but having said that i just don't think it's a road that we should go down and so i it's why i supported the gentleman's meme and i hope others as they come to the floor will as well this amendment would prohibit two hundred thousand in federal funds from being used for the american jazz museum in kansas city missouri for exhibits education programs and an archival project that reduces the cost the bill by a consistent amount i couldn't think of any jazzy line here i just say that earmarks like these probably give taxpayers all over the blues this is earmarked would come out of the institute for museum and library service account of the i m l s account the i in the last administers a competitive grant program for museums libraries in zoos and the committee has recommended this program be funded with nearly  eighteen million dollars i'm sorry recommended this program from which grants are drawn to be funded with nearly eighteen million dollars here is part of the problem i think with their marks particularly in this bill we are often  earmarking funds that are in programs at that or at the agencies that are already designated to be awarded on a competitively bid process this this jazz museum i'm sure has submitted applications perhaps they have one grants over the years but maybe this year they didn't so what earmarks typically do are circumvent the process that we have mandated to be established at these agencies and so earmarks we often complain about federal agencies not listening to us and going out and spending willy nilly that is often the case certainly it's our job then to call them in and say we want to change your program we want to have you competitively bid projects but i should point out that much of what we criticize the agencies for we are doing here in spades earmarks are by their very definition no bid contracts we're saying to people out there if you can't get your grant through the competitively bi process come to us anyway and we'll earmark those funds for you and so there's no concept no discussion of merit and try as they might i'm sure the appropriations committee is not in a position to adequately  these earmark requests that's simply not the role shouldn't be the ball we shouldn't put that burden on the appropriations committee but that i reserve the balance of my time in german yields does anyone see say that on the positive side i do have respect for the gentleman from arizona he is consistent and he is not mean spirited with his opposition there's a lot of mean spirited conversation that goes on here i should say to him however that this member of congress placed all one hundred twenty requested earmarks on my website in march not at the request of anyone i did it i'm proud of my earmarks i want everybody to see them i don't think there's enough money going to this particular project when i was mayor of kansas city missouri we built the the american jazz museum it is the only museum on the planet dedicated to the preservation of america's only art form jazz is the only art form created in the united states of america and we have what is called the john baker collection and if students at the university of arizona want to study they the industry of jazz the art form of jazz and they would like to see the sound is the only place they can see the john baker collection the largest collection of old black and white sound it is the american jazz museum in kansas city people from across this nation actually from across the world come into kansas city the city put money and to it and of course as a former mayor i know that we send unfunded mandates down on the city and so the city particularly since i left office reduces the funding each year and since people are using this museum from all over this nation ah bet there are people in arizona i hope they're watching who are using the american jazz museum and so i i believe first of all that then as transparent as anybody could be and the comments we received from people in our district republicans and democrats is thank you for being transparent i don't hide any of it i want everybody to look it and it gives me an opportunity to stand here and hope for the people in my district are watching me now to stand here and not only defend the earmark but to promote the american jazz museum this is the home of charlie yardbird parker born and raised right there went to school around the street from the the museum this is the place where count basie organized his band this is the place where game action organizers plan his band every major jazz artists in the world want to play eighteenth in vine now there is some debate about whether kansas city or new orleans is the is the mother of jazz of course knowledge is wrong and i'm not trying to help them when i can but the point here is that we need mr chair to have people who are going to put up earmarks to be in a position to feel good about them and express it  so i don't see this so much as a defense but as an opportunity to promote what i think is one of the legitimate projects for funding from the united states congress because it serves the people of this nation  balance of my time the gentleman reserves kerrigan as the general from arizona i have a great deal of respect for the gentleman whose whose earmark this is and believe he knows that and i commend him for earlier than just about anybody did putting his remarks on his website and certainly this has been a good reform and i have been complimentary and i remain still of the majority party's willingness in january to go down this road and actually require this much it follow some of what we did in the fall as republicans but frankly in some areas i think it did better than we did but this isn't the case of something looks on toward in this earmark or somebody is trying to get some private gain doesn't seem to me to be that at all it's simply a question of is this a proper priority should members of congress be able to designate money like this particularly in this case when we have a federal agency with a program to award grants and an account with sixteen million dollars that we have appropriate every year to award grants under this program that's my question here i think that certainly as mentioned jazz is uniquely american this is i can't imagine that if this museum did not i can't imagine them submitting a proposal that would not be granted it seems like a great place and it seems to be appropriate what's a question here is should the congress be doing things off my chest with the regard to this earmarking issue i know that policy questions are complicated and i know that budget questions are complicated and i recognize therefore that substantial members of the press and some members of the congress as well in both bodies seek to find other more issues which are small enough to get their mind around and so we have spent a goodly amount of time the last three weeks talking about earmarks i want to put  some things in perspective about earmarks on the financial services bill out of all of the money provided in that bill fifteen hundreds of one percent i'm sorry one point five percent was was devoted to earmarks in interior one point four three percent of all the money appropriated was provided by your marks in transportation one point four percent of the entire bill was allocated through earmarks in this bill it is slightly less than point two zero that is a very tiny portion of the overall bill the executive branch allocates or direct spending at least ten times as great as does the congress and i don't see or hear much squawking about that i just want to suggest this i don't happen to be comfortable with the earmarking system because it is a pain in the neck to me it takes an incredible amount of time and i would much rather spend that time on policy but the fact is that it is a constitutional prerogatives of the congress to do so and i would submit it creates a much more fair system example when speaker hastert ran this place last year here is the speaker of the house and yet if the congress earmark no money all the dollars would go back to illinois and they would be directed by democratic governor so hastert would be part of the body that raised the money at the federal level and sent the money back to states and local governments and he said without the earmarking process the most powerful and influential man in congress would have nothing to say about how that money was allocated in his own state i submit that's not right or take myself i chair the appropriations committee i think i spend more time and frankly i think that i know at least as much about the federal budget as anybody in this institution not because i'm so plugged in but because of my job and the fact that i've been here a long time and even an idiot ought to be able to pick up a fair amount of information as well as long as i've been here and so i would simply say that  ask the question why should i serve in this body try to help my district and then discover that because for sixteen straight years we had a republican governor i had nothing whatsoever to say about funds that were distributed in my state without the earmarking process the earmarking process if it is used correctly allows individual members to target things in their own district that they think will contribute the most to improving the conditions that is the living conditions or the education conditions or the cultural conditions in that district i don't think there's anything wrong with that but i i find it incredibly amazing and amusing that we're talking about point one nine percent of all the funds in this bill and yet people are how much time have we spent talking about basic education philosophy how much time that we spent talking about which of these education programs really work how much time that we spent in this debate talking about the programs answer is it because some people prefer to deal with hon want to remind my colleagues of some important facts as we deliberate on these earmarks i think it's very important to understand that we have reduced the dollar value of your marks in this bill by fifty percent from the levels that the republicans had when they were running this house of representative fifty percent reduction we have cut forty one wasteful programs from the budget in this appropriations bill we've saved over one billion dollars over last year  while we get involved in the intricacies of one earmark after another let's keep focused on the facts that count and the facts that count is that we reduce this budget and slash those earmarks on time expired chairman i would like to make two final points the first is the people in the fifth congressional district of missouri harry truman's district will have the opportunity to judge whether or not i should have placed these projects before congress for earmarks next november i measured by my representation in that district and i would suggest that they are going to be very pleased with with what i've done but the other issue is that we're talking about a two hundred thousand dollars earmark two hundred thousand dollars to mark which and i had hoped for significantly more than that and we're spending two hundred eighty five million dollars a day eleven million dollars an hour in a wreck and if you subtract two hundred thousand dollars that would n number six printed in the congressional record offered by mr jordan of ohio pursuant to the owner of the house of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand and seven the gentleman from ohio mr jordan and a member opposed each will control fifteen minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio i think the chair of the previous speakers from the majority party talked about how this legislation in front of us has reduced the number of earmarks i believe his quote was are forty one programs that have been eliminated from from prior from last year's appropriation bill but nevertheless this bill increases spending ten point eight billion dollars more than the president requested seven point seven percent more than the president requested it's a seven billion dollars or a four point six percent increase over last year's appropriations and so my amendment is real straightforward it says we're not going to back the president we don't we're not going to cut it in the term cut two to the president's requested level we're going to go back to last year's funding level a level funding amendment a hold the line amendment whatever you want to call it certainly not a cut although that's typically been the the argument made by the other side this is the sixth amendment i've offered in the appropriations process each one has been the same to hold the line on spending i don't do it to be a pain in the rear to the committee or to the ranking member i appreciate the work of the committee and i and our ranking member and those involved in this committee bringing this bill forward i do it because we have a spending problem we have a spending problem in this in this cause and in this government and there's going to come a day we're going to have to deal with it and there's no better time to start than now no better place to start than to say let's just hold the line because here's what happens every single time government continues to spend and spend and spend it inevitably leads to higher taxes higher taxes that hurt our economy higher taxes that hurt our standing in the international marketplace but most importantly higher taxes that hurt families out there trying to do the things for their kids and their grandkids so that they can experience the american dream and if you don't believe me if you don't believe me that spending is going to lead to higher taxes i got to do is look at yesterday's roll call where there's a story in fact we just had the distinguished member scuse me the distinguish chairman from the ways and means committee down here defending one of an earmark in his district but he has talked about in the article talks about the tobacco tax that they're looking to put on the american people to fund increased spending so whenever we you know the old line is tax and spend tax and spend politicians it's actually the opposite it's spending tax spending drives the equation and that's why we need to begin to need to begin to get a handle on spending that's what this amendment does in the course of offering these amendments over the last several weeks we've consistently heard two arguments from the majority party the first is the old devastating cut argument that somehow if we just spend what we spent last year that will somehow be terrible in the sky will fall in the world will end and everything will go to chaos you know i i find it hard to believe in light of the fact that countless number of american families have to do that all the time live on last year's budget somehow the government never seems to be able to do that and of course the other line we've heard and i find this one somewhat amazing but i mean the line we heard is how dare republicans talk about holding the line on spending because you increase spending over the last several years as well and i'm fascinated by that argument because the gman is when you boil it down is this because republicans spent too much we're going to spend more and so i have i fail to see the logic in those who argue it's what i do understand is this mr chairman government spends too much and families know how to budget we should be able to do the same thing families don't just get an automatic four point six percent increase in their budget we should look to hold the line on spending that's what this and them a does is it will help set us on a path of fiscal discipline so we can begin to deal with the big problems that i referenced earlier that are going to be out there with entitlement spending and begin to get a handle on our budget that our economy can continue to grow and prosper and with that i would reserve the balance of my time john from wisconsin is recognized as chairman i just would like to make a couple of short observations we're told by this gentleman and we've been told and we've been told and we've been told and we've been told and we've been told for three days that somehow it is this bill which is responsible for the outrageous fiscal mess facing the country i just want to say one thing here this bill spends ten billion dollars more on our kids on our workers on our obligation to provide more access to health care to people who don't have it then the president does i plead for we double guilty i would do twice as much if i could i would do three times as much if i could because the country needs it this is the bill and make the investments that will make our country stronger economically educationally and socially not just today but for the next ten years that's what this we've got a two percent difference between us and the president in terms of what we're trying to spend in this bill versus what he thinks we ought to spend and i've just told you where we put the right places does the president want to put money the president wants to spend five times as much as we spend as the difference that we have with him in this bill you want to spend he wants to spend five times as much giving tax cuts to people make more new million bucks a year he's going to give fifty seven billion bucks to people in this country who make over a million bucks a year we think that money a portion of it on is better spent of it goes to kids who need it and the sick people who need it and we make no apology for it the other thing i would simply say is that the other place a president wants to spend it he wants to spend sixty times as much as that ten billion dollars and that still put war in iraq the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the republic so we plead fully guilty to having a meaningful two percent difference between the president and us we plead fully guilty and i wish it were yielding and i arrived today to support the gentleman is a member of the bill before us spend some ten billion dollars more than the president requested seven billion dollars more than what this bill spent last year and what the gentleman seeks to do is to reduce the overall amount of spending in this bill to the level we spent last year now our job as members of congress are to make decisions decisions about spending a keep increasing spending and increasing spending guess what there's no reason to make a decision we don't have to make the tough choices because we just keep spending more now this bill some ten billion dollars seven billion more than we spent last year now this would be on top of the bills that we've already spent this year spending some ten to twelve billion dollars more than the president asked for and above last year's levels on top of that there's six billion dollars of additional spending that was in a continuing resolution in february that seven hundred billion dollars more in the supplemental spending bill for iraq and katrina over and above what was needed in those theaters and the appropriation process is not finished yet what's happening here is we're continuing to spend more and get the largest tax increase in american history coming and i thought we were here to ensure that our kids and their kids had a better chance in life than what we had met or every generation of americans has been proud of the fact that they left the country and left opportunities for our children and their children that were better than what it's our obligation to make sure that our kids have a better chance at the american dream than what we had but we're not doing that we're mortgaging our children's future by continuing to raise taxes and increase spending we've done it all year and we're not even we're not even to the end of the area that we're only in july and and we've got numbers that that add up will add up to close to one hundred billion dollars of additional spend how much is enough how much is enough i think the general gentleman's amendment is a good amendment a just a bring the spending level in this bill down to last year's level and let's make the tough choices that the american people they say on the other side when the gentleman is sad that we have they a spending problem well i think and and that they left the country in better shape our friends on the other side are talking about leaving the country in better shape i think we need mr chairman to remind them of the history here what we're talking about just six short years ago is president clinton left office with a budget surpluses of five point six trillion dollars and a lot of us at that time were talking about how we were going to invest in education and health care and the important things that our country needs in that makes our country stronger and in six short years six short lia years our republican friends have driven this country into a deficit situation we're talking projected now on a ten year basis three trillion dollars or more in deficit so i don't see how our friends on the other side of the aisle can claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility i don't see how they can claim in any way that they have left the country in better shape i don't see how they can claim that they're fighting spending i mean this was under them borrow inspan borrow and spend that was the message and what we're trying to do here in this particular piece of legislation is get under control a situation where we invest again in the things that the american people really care about invest in education investing in our workers so that we can have a competitive workforce investing in pell grants to help students get the very best educational miss time's expired we ask how much time both sides have each side has ten minutes remaining to reserve the balance of our time gentleman from new york  and if you look at what's happened in this is for every stay but i can just give you the numbers on how we have six hundred twelve public schools in ohio in one nine hundred seventy seven we had two million case two twelve kids today we have one point eight million so we've had two hundred thousand less kids in k through twelve public school six hundred twelve districts in our state over that thirty years two hundred thousand less kids dollars spent per pupil dollars spent for aggregate dollars spent for facilities dollars spent anywhere you want to find dollars spent adjusted for inflation is that is a tremendous increase so you've got two hundred thousand less kids who got the graph on this where the economics major say i've got these graphs grap coming down the number of students graph on up adjusted for inflation and what are the results it's a straight line so you spend a boatload more money on two hundred thousand less kids to get the exact same results so more money may mean more learning in some places but to make a blanket statement more money means more education more money means more learning is simply not true and the facts are on our side so we define success is actually being success not giving more money and hoping and hoping that thing good things are going to happen and if they don't you know we're going to give more money next time we don't define it that way we say if kids are really learning that to be success not the fact we are given a more money with that idea of the gentleman from arizona i think the gentleman for y know i was brought up before that we're not talking about what the federal agencies do we talk a lot about what congress does with earmarking but there's nary a complaint i've heard about what the federal agencies are doing this is the time to have that discussion right now we're looking to to reduce the amount spent the amount that we appropriate to the federal agencies yes they waste money a tremendous amount of money they waste money in my own district this is the time that we say hey pull back a little free prioritize don't spend as much and yet we're not doing it instead we say well you're misspending money and so we're going to spend some money with earmarking and we don't like the way you prioritize so we're not going to actually go in and provide oversight and say all right stop spending money this way or that way we're just going to add to it with our own priorities and part of the let me just give an example it's often said that we don't ever give examples of specific programs i'll give you one  believe it was last year or maybe the year before g a o came out with a study saying that the dare program was a waste of money basically or we weren't getting the bang for the buck that we should what did we do we increased funding for it instead of saying you know maybe it's not run as it should be maybe we should scale back on it force them to change it or scrap it altogether but instead week increased funding for it that goes on across the board g a o studies that we often commission are always followed by well they must need more money not the money's being misspent they just need more of it that's what this amendment is all about to say hey federal agencies you're misspending money you're spending too much it's time to scale back and by the way we can scale back on our own as far as earmarking as well so when we hear that we never hear about the federal agencies in the spending here's one thing they do they do in your district they do in my district this is the opportunity to say enough is enough let's mr who seeks recognition mr chairman and you'll myself sometimes i may consume i appreciate the gentleman's argument at least his argument is consistent and i appreciate the gentleman's integrity and i appreciate the the principles of his argument but i must say sitting here listening to some of the other members on the other side of the aisle consistently raises issues of inconsistency the gentleman who's offered this amendment has said we should go back to last year that's all we're doing is going back to last year so that we can hold the line on spending why would we want to go back to last year when last year was there ever an attempt to hold the line on spending as chairman the other side spent and spent and bent and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed the difference between us is that we want to invest in america's families the other side mr chairman decided to spend to give special interest giveaways we want to spend to make sure that kids can pell grants and go to college and compete in a global economy they want to spend on no bid contracts for halliburton we want to spend to make sure that seniors can heat their homes in the winter because of high or low prices they want to spend on thirteen billion dollars in tax cuts for the oil company executives who i don't think are eligible for a lot of heat that's the difference between us you know we just had a debate earlier about the propriety of members of congress putting their names on projects that are funded by the federal government i would suggest to my good friends that if there were an earmark for a facility called the congressional hypocrisy treatment foundation there wouldn't be a plaque large enough for all of their names simple fact the president's budget would have a spend as a share of our total national income forty eight percent less on that creates a problem because we're going to have twenty seven million more americans in the next ten years we're going to have twelve million more seniors needing health care we're going to have two point seven million more kids in elementary and secondary school we're going to have two point two million more students in college and unless we change our way we're going to have eleven million more americans without health insurance that's why we don't want to go back to last year we want to move ahead to try to deal with the problems coming at us in the debate that i just want to try to get get a little clarity on i was i served here in the late ninety's and i recall that the republicans as the majority party passed a balanced budget five point six trillion dollars surplus i think they're mistaken i think what they meant to say was president clinton left the united states government with a five point six trillion dollar debt now that debt has increased but the fact is that when we were the majority party for the first time since the one nine hundred forty s we produced a balanced budget the president does not have the power of the purse the congress does we created that surplus we created the balanced budgets and there was no surplus left at the end of the clinton administration we actually paid down the debt about a half trillion dollars but five hundred billion dollars that was good work things changed pretty dramatically in two thousand and one when our nation it was attacked we went to war we had a recession and the debt cam bubble burst  mirrors another magic show mr chairman that i may have seen what some where we we have the chairman of the appropriations committee said that the president's budget would spend forty eight percent less this year on education in some other things that he mentioned then was in one thousand nine hundred eighty but yet they talk about what kind of spending spree we're omes so i can't imagine what kind of spending spree the democrat majority must have been on in one nine hundred eighty let me say this we keep hearing a lot of history lessons lot of history and here for some reason we don't want to talk about the future but we keep hearing about the fifty seven big union from the people in this country that make over a million dollars now i really don't know if that's true or and i'm going to soon the chairman appropriations committee mr chairman knows if that's true or not but you know he's it's almost mitchum like he sounds mad that he can't get his hands on somebody else's money he said you know we can't get to fifty seven big dollars and we want to spend it i'm mad about it and you know what we're spending too much money on the war on terror well look i've only been here three years mr chairman but i know one thing i know that the chairman's appropriations committee in a democratic leader over over ship over there can stop this war today today i got two hundred thirty two votes they control the purse wings they can stop it today the supplemental budget we passed that our leader talked about was twenty big dollars more than a president requested the chairman  committee said you know what outspent ten billion dollars more what's stopping him he's already spent an eleven billion more watched stop an emphasis finnan tim billion more because you know why i think they're afraid to tell you that these things that they are investing in that's what they like to call spending taxpayers dollars the things that they're investing in mr chairman is coming out of the american people's pocket they are making investments for the people of this country that they don't even have any say in it's time we wake up you know i'll admit we have made many mistakes expired thank you kids can go to college making sure people can afford to heat their homes but tell you something else it's not just us mr chairman this bill came out of appropriations with a strong bipartisan majority the most conservative members of the other side voted for this bill so it's not that we are making these these investments as democrats is that most mainstream members of congress with responsibilities to our districts are making these investments now maybe there are some or so far on the other side so far on the fringe that they would argue with their own conservative members that an investment in college education is a bad idea but the fact of the matter is they are in a very very small minority this bill had strong bipartisan support in the appropriations committee republicans and democrats work together despite the opposition from such a fringe minority and i will now i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio mr ryan i thank the gentleman with the gentleman from georgia i was wondering and i'll ask it as you're walking as do you believe that the federal government has responsibility for any case through twelve education programs up think that the federal government if they want to fund k through twelve it should be block grants to the local school districts for them to be able to spend the money to the needs of their local stu district so you do begin the needs are going to believe in federal spending on education at the local level i think that if the federal government is going to spend money on education that they need to send it to the state as a block grant for the state department of education to spend in the right decisive i thank the gentleman i want to make sure because as we had the conversation i've heard many gentleman who are up here earlier say that they didn't believe in any federal spending for education local education at all and i just want to clarify that you at least do believe that we are do have an obligation to spend money and i appreciate i appreciate you saying that does claim that i'm on the fringe voting for this bill i would just like to say that i join his colleagues every republican on the labor age subcommittee from all over conservative republicans in support of this bill the gentleman from new york mr regular the gentleman from ohio these are balanced fair journalist i was asked by build an additional thirty seconds to john and i would recognize these are balanced fair investments is the gentleman from new york stated we're not raising taxes oh check keep your forms from last year your tax forms in comparison to next year there will not be an increase in your taxes what we're doing is we're not spending the money on the banks we're spending it on the kids we're not giving it to the oil companies we're giving it to the kids for education and health care it's a difference in priorities there is not a tax credit increase in here and the bottom line is we make investments in the future of our in better shape than they found it or that we have that obligation three trillion dollars in debt under your watch republican house republican senate republican white house three trillion dollars and the gentleman from ohio wasn't here but this congress asked the secretary of treasury to raise the debt limit five or six times so they could go out and borrow more money from china more money from japan but more money from opec on what the gentleman yield so we don't need lectures on how to leave the country better off than we found it jo together in ohio mr chairman there was a study done by the university of akron and it said for every dollar that the state of ohio invested in higher education they got two dollars back in tax money this is an investment that we're going to make and we're going to yield know all the time and sometimes facts are a strange thing the federal government does not have a revenue problem revenues increased by fourteen point five percent two thousand and five eleven point six percent two thousand and six and are projected to grow and distil hundred sixty seven billion or seven percent this year because we let the american family keep more of their money spend it on the things they want to spend it instead of saying to them you know what we're going to we're going to increase spending four point six percent this bill and twenty someday dollars over this appropriation process that we've done the job that someone said early two seconds we want to with republicans on the appropriations committee who by a widespread margin supported this bill we want to continue to invest in america's families and in their future a very small group of members on the other side want to continue going to the past where they were spending tax to pare dollars on special interest giveaways there are people in all of our districts who are scratching their heads trying to figure out how they're going to send their kids to college so they can compete in a global economy the president wants to slash or eliminate college affordability programs for one and a half million students now that's why republicans and democrats on the appropriations committee supported investments that will make additional pell grants available so that people who are working hard playing by the rules and want their kids to advance can send their kids to college this isn't a radical idea this was a bipartisan consensus on the appropriations committee but those who are offering these cutbacks don't agree with republicans and democrats who believe in making investments so that people who play by the rules and work hard can send their kids to call ledge there are people in our districts who are trying to figure out how they're going to pay for their skyrocketing home heating oil costs the president wants to cut home heating oil programs by three hundred seventy nine million dollars and take away assistance to one point five million people that's wh republicans and democrats on the appropriations committee agreed that we should invest a fraction of that eight hundred eighty million dollars to make sure that an additional one million people can pay their heating oil bills republicans and democrats on the appropriations committee bipartisan but there are a few who say no no we should continue giving tax cuts to big oil company executives rather than giving people the ability helping people with the ability to pay their home heating oil costs there are people who are just tricks  can't figure out what to do if they get cancer how they're going to have access to health care programs the president wants to cut medical research at the end i h by four hundred eighty million dollars and cut preventive health care services by two hundred  twenty million that's why democrats and republicans joined together on the appropriations committee to invest one point three billion to improve health care access and help one million uninsured americans receive treatment and increase investments in an  so this is about priorities bipartisan common sense priorities this is about those of us on both sides of the aisle who believe that we should invest in strengthening america's families and a very small group who believe that we should continue to borrow to give away money to the special interests and i want to conclude by reminding my colleagues how we go about making these investments not by raising taxes they're going to keep saying it and saying it saying it chairman i would rather not talk about what one party did one year what one party did another year because i think that there is substantial support in both parties for the bil before us today and i want to walk through what the impact of this cut would be on this bill if we pass this bill we will be cutting one point two billion dollars from no child left behind the president's signature education for a set of programs we do because in six hundred eighty four million dollars from title one gra we would be cutting five hundred in one thousand million dollars from idea that's a program which both parties have fought for the last three days to try to increase we would be cutting seven hundred seventeen million from reducing scholarship awards for millions of students despite the fact that cost of higher education has gone up by forty percent the last five years we do cutting one point four billion dollars from the national institutes of health money that we use to combat cancer heart disease parkinson's and the like we'd be cutting one hundred million dollars for community health centers denying needed health care and dental services to almost half a million people would be cutting fifty three million dollars out of the president's request to prepare the country for a potential pandemic flu we do cutting three hundred twenty million from headstart eight million from child care development block grant we'd be cutting four hundred forty six million dollars from the social security administration denying the resources that agency needs to maintain and keep  open its local offices and reduce backlogs of disability and s s i claims so people have a choice what's more important their own accounting sheets or these investments in the country the fact is with the exception of the gang of four virtually every republican who is offered an amendment has done the same thing the democrats have tried to do they've tried to find ways to increase programs that they think are important to the country's future and so i would submit i don't think those republicans are out of step and i don't think those democrats are out of step i think the out of the gang of four offering the amendments because i believe that most americans and i think most republicans would rather invest the phones now to prepare our workforce to be better trained our kids to be better educated and our health care system to be more efficient and more and more humane that's what this bill is all bob and i think that there's a bipartisan consensus in this house to stick with this bill and so i would urge a respectfully rejection of the amendment as i make one other point we have a one point four billion dollar initiative of a debt of add ons to try to discourage women from having abortions instead of lectures we provide resources to make their lives better if they if they decide to have those kids this bill would cut about forty percent of that initiative out of the bill i happen to think that that that initiative is too important to send by and this what purpose is the gentleman from georgia rise to have an amendment the best mr mcclurkin please doesn't remember men number four printed in the congressional record offered by mr price of georgia pursuant to the honor of the house of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand and seven the about some responsible spending here in washington i think this debate is helpful it's helpful for the american people because what it demonstrates is a difference in philosophy before i get to the specifics of my amendment i want to just mention we've just heard a litany of projects that the chairman of the appropriations committee said would be cut with the previous amendment and he went through no child left behind cut quote cut one point two billion title six hundred eighty four million i d e a five hundred nineteen million pell grants seven hundred seventeen million cut in fact mr chairman what the american people understand is that the amendment that was just proposed would keep funding level not cut level which means that there wouldn't be any decreases over this car and year of spending there would be the same amount of money it's what americans do every year when they have a difficult challenge financially i would suggest mr chairman that we have a difficult challenge financially this year in our nation and consequently to label those things cuts is just it just isn't so just in so in the increase of this appropriations bill now to look at the big picture look at the where we are in terms of numbers right now this current year and acted for this portion of the federal appropriations covered one hundred forty four point six billion dollars the president's request the administration's request as we all know was less than that one hundred forty point nine billion the bill that we have before us is one hundred and fifty one point seven billion dollars ten point eight billion dollars more than the administration's requests more than the request of those that we charged for running this portion of our nation this amendment my amendment that i'm offering now would instead of having this bill be one hundred fifty one point seven billion dollars would say let's have it be one hundred and fifty point two billion dollars so a significant increase over last year but a one per cent reduction from the increase an increase that would be greater than the rate of inflation but a one percent reduction than that that comes from the committee and the reason for that is because of the financial situation that we find ourselves in as a nation if you mr chairman or i or anybody any of our constituents find themselves in a situation where they need to save some money that oftentimes what they will do is say well we need to cut back across the board on the kinds of things that we're spending kinds of things that we're spending and that's amendment simply states that had a one percent cut well to be able to find one penny out of every dollar to save for our children's future and the rationale for that is because it's not our money mr chairman it's not congress's money the hard earned money of the american taxpayer and we hear a lot about of priorities and we ought to be prioritizing and that's what budgetary bills are that's what appropriations bills are making priority judgments for the harder an american taxpayer money our priority on this side is that hardworking american taxpayer and so we rise to offer this amendment that we believe to be responsible amendment it outlines the differences between the two sides very clearly i believe we believe that there ought to be at least one penny out of every dollar that we ought to be able to find in terms of savings in this area for the next year  and offer it sincerely and honestly and respectfully and i would encourage my colleagues to accept the amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time the gentleman reserves general united gentleman from new york chairman i clean time in opposition to the together in support of these investments in america's families i do not recall the gentlemen coming to the floor arguing for a one percent cut back when it was time to give ritual company executives a fourteen billion dollar tax cut and i will yield three minutes to the gentleman from california  we have five and if you require the additional time we'll be happy to you i thank you i rise in opposition to the moment but i thank the gentleman for offering it because it reminds us of what this debate is really about we are debating about whether we will invest in america's future we are debating what kind of a nation we expect to be my chairman fellow committee members of both parties and the vast majority of people around the country believe in america's future we believe that america's best days are ahead of us we believe that the american people can compete and succeed in the global economy and that the most talented industrious and ingenious people on earth are the american people and we believe that to ensure our bright future we must invest in the american people today the america we see ahead of us is one where every child has the opportunity to go to college regardless of whether their parents did and regardless of whether they are rich or poor they receive the best job training develop the strongest skills are empowered to create by laws that reward innovation and have a government that is working for them not against them in foreign markets in america we see every child and their parents as access to decent health care and no one working full time playing by the rules and contributing to the prosperity of the country has to become impoverished because of a catastrophic illness in the family no parent should have to mourn the loss of a child that could not provide health care for and no child should grow up in a home without one of its parents for lack of the same access to care for our parents generation this vision of america's future resembles their own fondest hopes our parents and their parents struggled so that we could enjoy a higher quality of living better schools better hospitals and a safer world than what they knew and by and large this greatest generation was successful america is a better more prosperous nation because of their struggle but to generate that went before us did more than struggle they also invested they built schools they built hospitals they built our armed forces and they invested america's future if america is to enjoy the same bright future we have in mind that investment must go on fortunately this vision of an america where our best days are still ahead of us is a bipartisan vision it crosses every economic political and generational line we all want and believe that we can bring about a more secure and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren and we believe we can do so must do so in a fiscally responsible way by paying as we go sure there are some who do not share these values or who believe that we can achieve this bright tomorrow without any investment without nothing crowd the i got mine you get yours crowd they do not believe america needs our investment in the future well the future can take care of itself some of these naysayers you will hear from today some you have heard from already masquerading under a banner of fiscal prudence they will say we cannot afford the investment it is a masquerade these are the same people of course who drove our national debt to its highest in history through a half decade of borrowing and theirs was the worst form of borrowing borrowing that led to no investment and therefore to no improvement in the nation's foundation my parents generation had them to these masqueraders the something for nothing crowd but just imagine what kind of america we would live in today if our predecessors had followed their irresponsible siren song we would still be traveling in long dirt roads instead of highways with crops rotting in the fields long term economic stagnation bleak present and even bleaker future we would in some have become that nation that franklin roosevelt so preciously warned against a nation with a substantial portion of its people ill fed ill clothed ill housed and insecure it is indeed fortuitous that these voices are few now and were few was then that the overwhelming bipartisan majority of committee members and americans recognize that we have a responsibility to our nation's future and that responsibility requires sound investment in ten years two point seven million more kids will be in k twelve schools and america will be ready for them because we insist on it in ten years two point two million more students will be in college and our universities will be ready for them with a state of the art education because we insist on it in ten years the global economy will be even more extensive and american workers will be competing and winning because we will have invested in them and yes it is because we are insisting on it now we believe in america's future we believe our best days are ahead of us it's like an attempt or seconds you'll nischelle ten seconds and we share the belief that our parents had before us that we are responsible for that bright future and that future requires investment i yield back gentleman's time has expired time is available on both sides and the gentleman from new york has nine and a half minutes remaining because that's exactly what we're talking about we're talking about the future was a bit of a orwellian speech there because the actual and this bill don't match the the the wonderful sunshine that the gentleman paints but that's all right because that continues to be the mantra that we hear americans know that that when you hear the word investment in this chamber that what that means is taxes and it points out the fundamental difference between the majority party in the minority party a majority party believe that government spends hardworking american taxpayer money better than hardworking american taxpayers that's the fundamental difference and that's what this discussions about and so i'm responsible approach to this appropriations bill homeowners recognize thank you mr chair let me just say i appreciate the good work of the committee and i know it takes a lot of effort to bring people together for setting the spending priorities and the policies of our nation and now there's been a lot of hearings and testimony on this particular piece of legislation and i want to commend the committee for their hard work both democrats and republicans but i do rise to support this amendment i think it's a reasonable amendment to look at how we can in this congress be more physically conservative how we can control our spending and i've had so many people come up to me since i've been elected as a newly elected freshman saying we have to do a better job in congress of controlling our spending this particular a minute cut the budget by one percent the budget that has been recommended is ten billion dollars over last year's ten billion dollars that's more than we've been in the state about the homo's whole state budget ten billion dollars is more than that so i think it's reasonable to say that we would like to cut this amount by one percent i don't know how people can argue with that and i've heard a lot of discussion here today about how this piece of legislation invest in education health care social systems is for the future of our children and i don't think you'll find anyone up here who will argue against those things i've also heard some people stand up and say today that republicans like to spend money when it's their turn but when we're spending money then we're against it well when you look at the spending amounts that have occurred over the last many years in this congress i'm hype rankly don't approve of that i think we have been spending too much money in this congress and i'm not going to lay blame on either side other than just to say that a one percent cut in this budget to me same's reasonable there is an increase spending for the important things social programs education health care and i've also heard some of the people who spoke today talk about the future and about stupid political blunders of spending on policy like the iraq war well i guess we can have that debate which we have had for many many months but what i can say is that the money that has been spent by this congress and some people have asked you know has the money gone to wise things i personally think that protecting our nation protecting our national security and spending that money is a well worth cause and we were talking about the priorities that we're going to be having here in congress some people have said well we're looking at the various preparation bills that we've already had that we've been voting on some were ten billion more some were seven billion more twelve billion more we didn't object to all the different spending levels that there were but when you add all those things that ban adds up to a lot of money and i guess all that is to say that no your my people back home say a set the priorities determine what's reasonable be physically responsible and how we're spending our many people are concerned about the rising cost of gas a rising cost of health care they're concerned about education they're concerned about taking care of those who can't take care of their selves i think it is reasonable for us to look at a one percent cut in this budget but yet still meet the priorities of this nation and taking care of the people that need to be taken care of in this appropriations bill that it's harder for their kids to afford college or that gas prices are getting higher or that they're worried about their health care but many republicans and democrats are getting those calls which is why there wasn't a single republican in the appropriations committee who voted against this the gentleman also said that we've got to be fiscally responsible well that's why so many republicans joined us in supporting this bill because in fact this bill cuts forty one programs that didn't make sense anymore and reduces by this has been a very interesting debate and one of the aspects of it with which i find myself in agreement is the assertion by my friend on the other side of the aisle that there is a display of differences of opinion and attitudes with regard to the way in which we handle our fiscal responsibility here and there is no question about that if you look at the last six years while the republican party has controlled every aspect of this government they manage this to succeed to almost double the national debt they now have us in a situation where we owe almost nine trillion dollars eight point nine trillion dollars they continue to spend as a result of their initiatives now about eleven billion dollars a month on iraq the illegal invasion of iraq which they perpetrated and are interested in carrying out what we're trying to do here in this particular bill and in the context of the budget responsibilities is to  focus attention on the needs of the american people what we as a congress ought to be doing in the context of our responsibilities serving the american people doing what's right for them improving the possibility the prospects of education making it easier for our children to get the best possible education that they can get making it easier for people to get the health care that they need making it easier for people to deal with housing situations and circumstances so that people have proper housing in other words our objectives and our priorities is to improve the quality of life of the american people while your obvious priorities and objectives is to decrease the quality of life of the american people and which is consistent with your objective in the context of this particular amendment you want to reduce the amount of money that is available for education reduce the amount of money that's available for health care reduce the amount of money that's available for housing and other things that are essential to the american public while you keep wasting more and more money in a rack jim tenement time's expired members should be reminded that they have to make the remarks to the chair  and that's what this amendment does allows americans to keep more of their hard earned money and with that i'm pleased to yield three minutes to my good friend from texas mr henschel gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes and i think the gentleman for  the american people madam chairman are watching this debate they certainly seen a lot of name calling and a lot of shouting and now we're having our motives question i personally try to not go down that road i assume my colleagues on the other side of the aisle i'm sure their purposes are noble but i must admit in the four and a half years i've been here certainly been called a lot of names i think this afternoons of first time i've been called part of the fringe french had more to do with curtains but here we are as part of the fringe i guess because we believe that the government shouldn't grow faster than the people's ability to pay for it and somehow that's being called a fringe opinion we believe that it's the people's money and not the government's money yet we're being told by our democrat colleagues that's a that's a fringe opinion we happen to believe that the best housing program and the best education program is a paycheck not a government check but somehow our democrat colleagues have chosen to tell us that that's a fringe opinion and then we hear lectures from our democratic colleagues saying well when you guys were in the majority you spent too much money so madam chairman their response is well we're going to spend even more that logic defies me now they focus a lot on their noble purposes madam chairman and they focus a lot on the benefits of all this spending that they care to do and again i would like to point out this particular amendment says that this bill will grow by three point eight percent instead of four point eight percent i suppose that's another fringe opinion as well but you know what madam chairman my friends on the other side of the aisle don't focus upon where this money is coming from and so they talk about their investments on behalf of the american people madam chairman maybe the american people want to make their own investments you know i listen to the ward family in my district in garland texas and they write their congressman a tax increase in the spending is go fuel the tax is the largest tax increase in american history courtesy of the democrat party so all this spending in this bill is foisting a tax increase on the american people so the word family garland says a tax increase th would wipe out my ability to continue my daughter's education well i've got a message for the ward family and garland don't worry don't worry about it the democrats have an investment that they're going to make on your behalf so don't worry about the three thousand dollars you're going to take from me i also heard from the kincaid family and garland in my particular case an additional twenty two hundred dollars in taxes would cut into the finances i used to pay for my son's education well again let me tell you gentleman another minute challenged the gentleman from garland texas in my district and goes on to say i really believe that given more money congress will spend more money that's not the answer well i guess we ought to tell the kincaid family and garland texas don't worry about your son's college education the democrats are going to make an investment for you i heard from the brock family  dallas texas also in my district dear congressman with this tax increase i could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if i had to send twenty two hundred dollars more to the government well again we have good news for them don't worry about all the money that we're that they're taking the democrats have an investment for you so again madam chairman what our friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to realize is that all this great government spending and all these wonderful investments they have are madam chair or it's it's time for a fact check for the american people the gentleman said well we may have spent we may have spent a lot of money but now you're spending more fact this bill saves one point one billion dollars over last year fact this bill slashes earmark dollar value fifty percent from last time fact this bill limon h forty one programs that don't make sense anymore facts count and with that i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio mr ryan the gentleman from ohio is recognized  gentleman from new york my good friend madam chair we believe we do have a fringe four or five here in the congress and it's not one that when the gentleman refers to me or the gentleman from new york or the chairman you're talking about  bill that passed out of the committee with unanimous support from democrats and republicans you will see on the floor it will pass with democrat and republican votes this is a bipartisan bill but we have a fringe group in the house that consistently wants to try to find out and try to figure out how to make things work and what this bill does is it invests in our future and the bottom line is this we're now competing with one point three billion people in china one point two billion people in india competitive global economy and over the last few years we've seen for the average american people the gentleman from georgia said well we want people to keep more of their own money so do we but they haven't been over the past few years there's been a thirty two hundred dollar increase in their energy costs a twelve hundred dollar increase in their health insurance a forty percent increase in college tuition wages for college grads in the last four five years is down five point two percent gas prices the fastest growing part of the budget has been the interest payments on the debt but our bill addresses middle class family wages down sixteen hundred and sixty nine dollars over the past two years so the american people have not been able to keep more of their own money and so our agenda through this bill and other bills that we have passed address that issue how do you reduce the cost of energy you make investments in research and development and that will yield us benefits down the line how do you help families send their kids to schools you invest money into the pell grant you cut student loan interest rates in half and the difference really has been with the student loan interest rates we're not spending any more money what we're doing as a gentleman for an additional in the shell minutes john what we're saying is that money is not going to go to the banks that money is going to go to the kids in the students and we're going to cut the student loan interest rates in half and increase the pell grant we have money in here for community health centers so kids can get preventive care so they end up having they could get treated for a cold instead of ending up in the emergency room for a much much  higher price to the taxpayers so we're making significant investments and this bill will help secure a strong future for the united states of america we need to get more kids in college we need to invest in foreign languages that's what this bill does and i'm proud of this bill on a bipartisan basis and i think it's important for the people madam chair who are listening as this goes into the congressional record what do they want they want an investment in their future and that's what this bill does it make that investment to secure our future and make us strong and move us into a new direction so i thank the gentleman first time down the times backbencher may ask how much time is left gentleman being said a lot of numbers are being thrown around a lot of claims are being made even claims that facts are facts and i just wanted to clarify a point that my good friend from from new york made and that is that this bill saves a billion and a half dollars over last year i don't understand that statement because last year we spent one hundred forty four point seven billion dollars in budget authority enacted this year it's one hundred fifty one billion dollars so almost one hundred fifty two almost eight billion dollars more than last year so the fact check i think needs to be checked let's try to be accurate there's everybody wants to to thump their chest and say what a great party they have but the facts are we're spending eight billion dollars more this year than last and if this bill passes and i reserve the balance of my time challenge may not be there a time  chairman that would be the fringe that believes that governments ought to live within their means ought to pay their bills on a balanced budgets the gentleman from ohio who i respect and admire his style as a legislator and a leader has coined the phrase fringe and i want to embrace it i want to come to this floor and say every american who believes that we ought to balance the federal budget who believes that we ought to come together across the political divide and reform entitlements who believes we ought to wrestle to the ground and a trillion dollar national debt that fringe is the fringe that i represent in america and those with which i proudly stand and let me say i know that number eight trillion very well on my way to the floor today  i passed the office of clearly a dozen of the gentleman from ohio as colleagues offices democrats all who anyone looking on would necessarily know all have signs in front of their office lamenting an eight trillion dollar national debt and as the other gentleman said i'm i lament the role of the republican majority in creating that and i fought members of my own majority in years that we saw the go from five trillion dollars to eight trillion dollars but i say on behalf of the fringe the fringe of americans who say government's ought to live within their means they ought to balance budgets we ought to make the tough choices in a bipartisan way to live within the fiscal values that the american people represent i say let's deal with it and this cut today brought by the gentleman from georgia is a modest step to be sure it is it is a one percent cut it says instead of doing with a four point eight percent increase over last year the federal government will have to get by on a three point eight percent increase over last year and it doesn't seem need to be too much to ask with an eight trillion dollar national debt for us to come together and begin to trim and begin to make the hard choices but it won't solve the real problem and my cherished colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this we well madam chair it's refreshing to hear some candor on the other side this is an admission that there is a fringe and that is in fact a matter of fact because there wasn't a single republican vote against this appropriations bill in committee now those who define themselves on the friendship would suggest that the answer to america's problems is a one percent solution we can rein in our deficit that they built up with a one percent cut back i don't know where they were and i have a very high regard for their position but i do feel an obligation to ask where were they in offering amendments to cut thirteen billion dollars in giveaways to the oil company executives making the largest profits in the history of human kind when i was a one percent cut amendment then suddenly we could afford that but we can't afford additional pell grants for the steel worker that's a gentleman refers to where were they with an amendment for a one percent cut in excessive payments to halliburton one point four seven billion dollars in payments to house burton that had been found by the federal government to be fraudulent where was the amendment to cut those payments by one percent we could afford excessive and fraudulent payments to halliburton but we can't afford additional investments in cancer research and access to health care for the american people i would respect my colleagues if they showed more consistency but there has not been that consistency it's not about spending it's about spending on the wrong things in the wrong priorities i will yield thirty seconds to the gentleman from california i think i may have the gentleman's answer where was the fringe when the give to the oil companies and how burdens were taking place why wasn't there an effort to cut those giveaways by one percent those who wanted to cut those profits and those giveaways were not part of the fringe the fringe we're talking about here today is the fringe that says we want those obscene oil company profits we want those obscene profits for halliburton but we want to cut over a billion dollars out of education out of health care that's the fringe we're talking about the overwhelming bipartisan majority of us want to balance the budget we're working hard to do that but we don't want to balance the budget on the backs of our kids and on the backs of those that need health care and on the backs of our workers who need training and that i think is the friends that we're talking about here there and i thank the gentleman i will conclude madam chair bite by suggesting that the mainstream view the view that's been endorsed on a bipartisan basis by mainstream republicans chairwoman i would like to again simply walk us through what this cut means in specific terms this amendment would cut two hundred fifty seven million dollars from the president's no child left behind education flagship program it would cut one hundred forty four million dollars from title one denying more than forty thousand students those title one services it would cut one hundred thirteen million dollars from special education it would wipe out every single amendment but one that was passed on this floor in the last two days to enhance special education most of those amendments coming from the republican side of the aisle it would cut one hundred fifty six million dollars from  would cut three hundred million dollars from the national institutes of health for four biomedical research in cancer heart disease parkinson's alzheimer's in there and the like it would cut twenty two million dollars from community health centers one hundred thousand of the on insure good health would not have access to those services it would cut seventy million from head start twenty one million from a child care development block grant it would cut twenty seven million dollars from lie he i want to remind you in light heat the bill itself only restores half of the cut that was made last year by the president in the congress it would cut ninety seven million dollars  what they're going to do this a lad too that it'll add to the problem so with all due respect to the sanctimony that we hear from those who'd be related really cry about the federal deficit i didn't hear them crying about the federal deficit when they voted to spend six hundred billion dollars on an ill advised war in iraq i don't hear them crying about the fact that fifty seven billion dollars in tax cuts for millionaires adds fifty seven billion dollars to the to the federal deficit so i just think we need to recognize that i believe the vast majority of americans and i believe substantial portions of both parties in this house believe that this bill is responsible in real dollar terms all of the domestic appropriation bills that we will produce and have produced this year amount to a one percent increase in real terms the gentlemen all over their claim that that these were not cuts well let me tell you something if you appropriate the same a money the amount of money this year that you appropriated last year but inflation eats away at that and so it is population growth if you don't adjust for inflation and population growth then to each recipient of the services under this legislation there is indeed a cut to them and that's what counts it's the impact on their pocketbook it's the impact on their ability to get help to send their kids to school it's an impact on the couple in my district who c thirty one dennis to try to have some help with their kid who had to have the braces taken off his t v they couldn't get any of them to take them because the dentist didn't take medicaid patients they didn't have a local clinic and so the mother held the kid down while the father took the braces off with a pair of pliers that wouldn't happen any child of a member of congress the gentleman is smiling about that i don't think that's of anything to smile about i met that woman these will be cuts in terms of the services that we're trying to provide to these people it is immoral it is unconscionable that we allow forty four million americans to go without health insurance this bill will deliver health care coverage to two million more americans than got it last year it will make up in a tiny way for the indifference the massive indifference which has characterized this country the to designate and then the number twenty three printed in the congressional record offered by mrs musgrave of colorado springs to the water of the house of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand and seven the gentleman from colorado ms musgrave and a member opposed leach control fifteen minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado thank you man i'm chairman of the amendments and i'm offering today to this appropriations bill would make a cut of just one half of one percent over the overall funding of the bill you know my friends on the other side of the aisle madam chairman aren't talking about how we're friends members of the house of representatives you know i think when i go into my district and i talk to people one thing that they really want congress to do is rein in spending you know we hear lots of individual say you know we have to live within our family budget how come congress doesn't have to do that you know i was proud to be in a state legislature in colorado where we had an amendment to our constitution forcing us to live within our means so to speak in the state of colorado we could not spend money that we didn't have well here in the federal government it seems that even though as i walk down the hallways of the office buildings the longworth house office building i see many signs on easels out in the hall talking about our eight point eight trillion dollar debt we're being constantly reminded of that and you know what i think that is very appropriate i think every american ought to see that placard and see what we have eight point eight trillion dollar debt and  think about that i'm just offering the members of congress yet another opportunity to do the right thing the right thing being extra sizing this school discipline just a modicum of  discipline one point five percent so the increase in this bill would go from four point eight increase to four point three now some people would miss categorize that as a cut it is not a cut it is still an increase in spending of four point three percent so i would ask my colleagues to a dentist by with the american people who admire people who can live within their means who don't spend money that they really don't have but show the discipline to do the right thing and i'm asking for this cut today how many people can visualize a hundred dollar bill you give someone a hundred dollar bill say i want you to spend this wisely but let's just save fifty cents of that hundred dollar bill how many people would say that that was unreasonable madam chairman i'm saying today that this congress needs to start on the right path and i'm asking for a point five percent amendment to this appropriation bills and i i reserve the balance of my journal and reserve as h solution to america's problems is now down to point five percent the solution to america's problems is now down two point five percent less pole grant money so the kids can go to college higher fuel bills in the winter for people can't pay their fuel bills i never saw a point five percent reduction in funds to help burton i never saw a point five percent reduction in the thirteen billion dollars in giveaways to big oil come the executives who are making the world's greatest profits but now suddenly when it comes to reducing people's heating bills or reducing their college costs we want them to have another point five percent burden because the burden they have just isn't enough this is deja vu all over again it was a bad idea on the for the amendment before this it was a bad idea and the minute before that it's still a bad idea it's just down to a point five percent bad idea and i yield to my minister the gentleman from ohio mr ryan thank the gentleman and since my friends on the other side  embraced their fringe ness i'd like to just point out the a from the roll call the day around the hill there is a festival eleven day play this weekend and i know many of you go home so many your staff may wan to attend this it's the capital fringe festival so you may be able to attend and completely embrace the frenchness but again as the gentleman has said we had when we madam chair we first got in in the in the majority in january we tried to pass out of this house in our six in zero six provisions that we passed campaigned on and then passed one of the provisions was to strip fourteen billion dollars from the oil companies and our friends who are now wanting to take this money from from pell grants and investments in education investments in health care voted against stripping the oil companies of fourteen billion dollars and this is what we're talking about this bipartisan committee unanimously passed out of the committee unanimously on support of the republicans on that committee the support of the democrats on this committee well thought out pieces of legislation well thought out amendments in the committee supported unanimously unanimously by both sides and and what we're saying is we have to make these investments and all we did and there is no x increase in this year budget none zero that's it there if you can you can't point it out it in two thousand and seven keep your forms two thousand and six or last year's forms and compare him to next year's and there will be not one dime of an increase ok all we did was we took that money that our friends were giving to the banks and we invested that money in the kids the fourteen billion dollars that was going to the oil companies that there are times of highest profits is going into health care and education now and i have turned the energy you'll an additional minute to the gentleman is going in the alternative energy as i said earlier this is very simple we're in a globally competitive market and we need to make investments into our kids into our future that's what this bill does now what you're saying is with two wish it cost going up forty percent health insurance going up twelve hundred dollars a year in energy costs going up thirty two hundred dollars a year that the solution to that problem and every other problem we have in the country right now is a point five percent cut that would put additional burdens on families who are trying to send their kids to school would reduce the money that we're making into making our citizens healthier and community health clinics that at the end of the day would allow us to prevent people from ending up in the emergency room and costing us billions and billions of dollars more these are good investments voted on in a bipartisan way and will secure the strength of our country in the future and i yield back to my friends jalen colorado thank you man i'm chairman i won't be at the fringe festival this weekend i'll be going home to colorado i'll be talking to the folks that are working hard every day raising their children trying to make ends meet and worrying about higher taxes and i think they should be worrying about higher taxes because when we have increases this we're going to see those placards in the hallway with the national debt ever increasing i would like to yield three minutes to my friend from new minnesotans to client gentlemen to recognize three men and i thank the chair and i thank the gen who colorado for leading and for her excellent truly excellent amendment i have been following the debate for some time now like many of our colleagues and sometimes we have to follow it in our offices we're conducting other business and i hate that we have stooped to the sort of name calling which unfortunately i've seen i guess the general for ohio says that we're embracing the friends label and so therefore i suppose i'm down here to make the french larger  and that's i guess is a little humor in that and i'll just take it in that in that sense because i'm sure my my friend from ohio didn't mean any harm by it but as my my good friend  said in his comments that if the french are those hard working americans who think they make better decisions on how to spend the money that they are and then we do here in congress then then i'm in the right place  we heard that this this amendment this very modest amendment to look for point five percent savings would place an increase burd a point five percent burden increase burden on the american people there's no question that the largest tax increase in american history will place a huge burden on the working families american with all respect to my good friend and colleague from ohio the democrats budget in order to balances the rules require by the end of the budget period does impose the largest tax increase in american history and already we're starting to see the majority party have to start to pay the price for some of the budget gimmicks that have been involved in making that work now the democrats while increasing spending it seems like almost across the board certainly in the department of labor couldn't manage couldn't manage to keep the spending for the office of labor management standards at last year's level there they could find a cut when it came to the office whose responsibility is to find the crux who are stealing from union members they found a way to impose a four percent cut in that office and what a shame that is i offered an amendment received some bipartisan support but nevertheless on a largely p basis that amendment was defeated that amendment would have just restored the funding to last year's level for the only office in government who has the responsibility the capability to hunt down and catch the crooks that steal from our american workers but the majority for our party could find a way to cut their so i think that the choice here is clear it's been stated by many of my colleagues many of us friends are not fringe believe that the american people can make better decisions outside on the money we should let them do it i the public education system in colorado is funded by tax dollars thank you primarily coming from the property taxes thank you i reclaim my time the gentlewoman's proposal would impose a an across the chord across the board cut in no child left behind no child left behind is a federal program that local school districts must honor it is a huge unfunded federal mandate and i don't know about the gentlemen school district but i know that my school districts come to me all the time saying washington is forcing us to do these programs but they're not giving us the money that they promised which means that we have to raise taxes and so i would respectfully suggest to the gentlewoman that eight point five percent cut in this bill is a point five percent property tax increase in her congressional district because those poor school districts don't have the ability to say yes or no to those programs they've just got to provide the services and find the money for it we don't think that local property tax payers should have to bear that burden we believe along with every single republican in the appropriations committee that the federal government should assist in those programs and i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california mr shift down the california the beauty of the cross the border meme and so in the eyes of the authors of those amendments is that they're anonymous in their cuts they're anonymous from the pain they distribute they can go home to the district and say oh i'm not in favor of cutting education i'm in favor of across the board cuts so i'm not in favor of cutting home heating oil for people now that would be that would like compassion but i am for across the board cuts i'm for for what's a one percent cuts a half of one percent cut well what it is is hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of education or out of home heating oil or out of health care out of cancer research or out of special education so let's not take ourselves off the hook here and i would be willing to yield to my colleague from colorado do you support cuts in home heating oil assistance are you ready to stand up here and say to your constituents yes i am for cutting home heating assistance do you support cuts in special education or are you willing to say here today to your constituents that i support cuts in special education i support cuts and abstinence programs i support cuts with a gentleman let me answer the question yes would you would you tell us if you support cuts in home heating assistance well you know there is a not surprised that i can't get a yes or no answer i'm not surprised that the gentlewoman's not willing to say and stand up and say yes i support cutting this because i have other priorities home heating oil that's not one of them large oil industry profits that's one of my priorities halliburton that's one of my priorities but cutting heating oil that's not a priority or cutting special ed let me ask another question do you think that cuts in college education funding higher education funding can be done without cutting the number of kids who have access to college do you think we can cut funding for higher said without reducing the number of americans expire do you think we can cut funding from this bill from education higher education funding and not reduce the number of kids that go to college and you say just half a percent we're cutting from higher ed or the increase in the higher ed or however you want to phrase it but the cut is real that you're proposing so what does that mean twenty five thousand more kids can't go to college is that a fair number well maybe that's too much should we say ten thousand more american kids can't time i would ask the gentleman from colorado whether she is willing to support her cuts if she knows that it will mean fewer children in colorado can go to college and i'd be happy to yield for half the question if her cuts will mean through the chair to my colleagues in colorado that fewer of her constituents in colorado can go to college if she still willing to propose those cuts down  gentlemen from colorado i think what i should do madam chairman is purchase a dictionary and there have my friend on the other side of the aisle look up what a cut is when you go from four point eight percent increase in spending and you take away point five you end up with four point three percent increase in spending and that's what this legislation even with this modest amendment that i i been enjoying hearing the debate here today and as usual sometimes republicans and democrats appear to be passing each other a little bit in the night it seems to me from hearing comments now from a number of democrats speakers that there is an implicit assumption based on all of their arguments and that is hey this is important education's important and this is important and heating oil is important all the stuff there are for the government's gotta do it all for everybody now i  think the other assumption is and this is the assumption that i make is that americans are buying an awful lot more government than we can afford that's what my constituents are telling me and that's by common sense going back to my district things are getting more and more expensive we keep increasing everything that government does and the ideas as well you're not a compassionate because you don't want to add more money to government subsidies to do this and government subsidy that he the logical conclusion on that is a government gets one hundred percent of your paycheck and i don't think that's why we're competitive also heard people talking about we're in a global economy as though being in a global economy somehow excuses that the federal government should do everything for everybody i'm not buying that assumption the reason we're competitive in a global economy is because of free enterprise there's one thing about a safety net but we're buying too much government and to add insult to injury now the democrats have just passed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state their griping about one half of one percent of a cut and one little bill in discretionary income and they're adding the average of three thousand dollars per household across this entire nation now it would be interesting enough if they just add three thousand dollars in trouble with doing that this year is guess what you'll get the three thousand next year and the next year after that next year after that but the spending is even more so we're hearing  objection and it's all couched in this all don't you care about poor people with fuel oil heating bills and about education stuff the trouble is we're spending too much what part of that don't we get and so somebody offers this timid little amendment for one half of one percent and it's like the wheels are going to fall off i just i have to say in answer to the questions look we're just buying too much government and we have to start somewhere and i appreciate the ladies amendment she's at least starting on an on one piece where i would ask the gentleman i will yield to her if the committee report states that the committee recommends fifteen million twenty seven thousand dollars for prevention grants to reduce the abuse of run away youth to john as a gentleman advocate a point five percent reduction in a fifteen million dollar budget to prevent the abuse of runaway youth which was supported unanimously in the committee  the gentlewoman if the gentlewoman can answer i will ask her to give us an answer on this the committee report unanimously approved in committee recommends forty two million dollars four hundred thirty thousand dollars for community based child abuse prevention does the gentlewoman than i chair i ask the gentlewoman whether she is advocating eight point five percent reduction in a forty two million dollar line item for community based child abuse prevention and i would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman for an answer to my right in the front of the room in the front of the chamber there is a dictionary perhaps the gentleman would like to look up the word cut perhaps the gentleman would like to look up the word rationalization because the gentleman knows that there is still an increase of four point three in this bill even with this modest amendment but you know what claiming my time rational i lean away to what you find altruistic with someone else's mind but when  states that there is twenty six million dollars eight hundred forty eight thousand dollars for adoption opportunities because we all want to reduce the number of abortions in the united states so there's twenty six million dollars eight hundred forty eight thousand dollars for adoption opportunities the gentlewoman's amendment would as i understand it reduce by point five percent the amounts that are in this bill so madam chair i ask the gentlewoman i again and i will yield to her is she advocating eight point five per cent reduction in the committee recommendation of twenty six million eight hundred forty eight thousand dollars for adoption opportunities and i will yield to the gentlewoman since it is her amendment if she scares not to take the time i will ask the gentleman i will yield to the gentleman if he can answer this quiz madam chair i will yield to the gentleman if he would prefer choose to answer this question the committee report recommends nine million five hundred thousand dollars out of it to wan have trillion dollar federal budget nine million five hundred thousand dollars for the adoption incentives programs i would ask madam chair whether the gentleman supports a point five percent reduction in adoption incentives and i would also ask madam chair this the committee recommends a total level of funding of one hundred forty one million for the community based abstinence education program that is the level of funding that the committee on a unanimous basis republicans in the mainstream and democrats in the mainstream agree on will the gentleman i will yield to the gentle madam sheriff you can say is that the position of the fringe that we should actually cut by point five percent one hundred forty one million dollars for community based abstinence programs and i will yield to the gentleman madam chair i would like to point out i would like to point out to the gentleman that under his logic that hundred forty one million that is proposed in here is actually a cut because it is a cut from one hundred fifty million chair i would just state that at some point two plus two has to equal for the can equal what you want it to be it has to equal four these are the amounts of funding that are in this bill reported by republicans and democrats every single mainstream republican every conservative republican on the appropriations committee supported these numbers the gentleman says no no we've got to shave point five percent from these numbers and i'm still waiting to hear whether a single member on that side would publicly say that they wan adoption programs abstinence programs run away youth programs child abuse programs and i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from ohio so i just i hate to interrupt this beautiful debate going on but i think it's important for us to make a point we offered our friends on the fringe an opportunity within the first hundred hours that we were here to strip fourteen billion dollars from the oil companies corporate welfare that they were getting from the united states taxpayers and you all voted against it or at least most of you did you had a chance for fourteen billion from the oil companies but you choose to come here now and take it out of the high that the students in the middle class families who are trying to make ends meet and that's the difference this is a change in priorities you had a chance for fourteen billion from the oil companies was silent and now you choose to do it for programs that are going to make us stronger in the long run so i thank the gentleman i thank the chair i thank the ranking member for putting together such a great bill here and i think we should leave it as it is and not ask the people who have been at increased energy costs in forty part percent to wish an increase now to say wait a minute we don't want to help you with that we want to cut that five gentleman from colorado thank you madam chairman you know since we had a rudimentary arrest i'm a tick thing here two plus two equals four i just want to remind my friend madam chairman that four point eight percent increase maya's point five percent still equals four point three percent increase in spending and with that i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend from florida mr feeney and gentleman from florida is recognized for two men well i think the  and i would suggest that the real math is that this amendment would still anticipate a six and a half bill willian dollar increase and yet it's being called a cut and i had to come down to my office because i heard that if you are an advocate for taxpayers you are now part of the fringe of this congress if you're an advocate for fiscal responsibility suddenly you are part of the fringe and sadly i would have to acknowledge that if you care about fiscal responsibility in taxpayers in this congress you're becoming part of the fr increasing the budget expenditures by four point three percent is somehow going to lead to the end of civilization and the death of all of children out there and throwing people out of hospital beds you know i would remind all of my colleagues we have a tenth amendment this country over the years we now have one hundred fifty plus billion dollar annual budget to deal with things like labor health care and education it isn't the question of whether or not we're going to spend money in america on health care and education it's a question of who does the spending and who gets to  control i would ask every american as the federal budget has skyrocketed and we've taken control in micromanage their health care in education as public education gotten cheaper has it gotten better has americans health care system as we spen so much money on health care gotten cheaper and it's gotten better you know winston churchill once famously said there's nothing one government loans so readily from the last is how to spend other people's money i e the taxpayers and sadly this new majority did not learn the lesson that some of us learned in the last several congresses we are spending too much we are abusing american taxpayers and the notion is that if you care for children if you care for people who need health care you have to confiscate as much money out there from taxpayers and working people as possible and you have to micromanage the way it gets spent on so called their behalf the bureaucrats are happy the regulators are happy the politicians in washington are fat and happy but the american gentlemen from colorado thank you madam chairman as i hear the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle i would almost remember when my children were small and they actually believed in santa claus you know they thought that whatever they wanted they could have and we had to learn some lessons they had a wish list and then we had to live within our means you know and i think of the good things and by the way i'm very happy to hear that my friend on the other side of the aisle supports abstinence education when i hear about spending in these areas there is a finite amount of money you know when you are promoting government programs you're reaching into the pocket of the taxpayer that's the only place we get our money from the american taxpayer and as we think about the largest tax increase in history i think we ought to realize that this burden in the you know i just picture this enormous burden on our children and our grandchildren that we're leaving so you know in the meantime we can be proud of our spending because we're spending for very noble things and they are there are many noble things in this bill but what we're doing is we are crushing our children and our grandchildren with this eight point eight trillion dollar debt this eight point eight trillion dollar debt that is growing under this majority you know i was one of the ones in the back of the room you're right my friends on the other side of the aisle are right we spent too much the republican party is guilty of that but there were those of us who were budget hawks then that said our party not only should cut taxes but should restrain pending we were saying that and we're saying it now as we see the majority party going down the road at an even more rapid recognized for five minutes and i'm chairwoman i will make the same observation that i made last night all we have going on here in my judgment is operation diversion you have a bunch of people in this house who are perfectly comfortable with the fact that tax policies and pay have voted for will deliver fifty seven billion dollars in tax cuts this year to people who make over a million dollars a year that is five times as much money as the increase that we have in this bill above the president's request and you have people who have voted for the war in iraq which has spent six hundred billion dollars in a case of mistaken identity mistook the stocky guy with a mustache that hussein for the tall guy with the beard osama bin laden and that's a mistake has cost us six hundred billion dollars when you take into account the president's newest request that sixty times as much as the addition that we have above the president's budget for these programs they voted for all of that and now they want to scramble away from the deficits and the debt that has produced and they try to divert the attention of the public and say oh the real cause of our fiscal mess is the fact that these crazy democrats are trying to put more money into education and more money into health care and more money into job training well i plead fully guilty we are trying to do that because yes we do believe that these are investments we think that kids are better off if you get a few put more money in education and if you take it away and we think society is better off economically and morally if we do more to help people who need health care rather than less now this amendment would cut the following amounts from the bill that would cut one hundred twenty eight million dollars from this bill for no child left behind it would cut seventy four million dollars from title one it would cut fifty six million from idea republicans and democrats alike have spent the last two days trying to increase funds for idea now they want to cut it back by fifty six million they want to cut from this bill seventy eight million bucks for pell grants despite the fact that college costs have exploded they wan one hundred forty million dollars from this bill for the national institutes of health they want to cut forty eight million dollars from this bill for the souls kerry administration they want to cut sixty nine million dollars from this bill i'll have programs that we have here to try to discourage women from having abortions now if they want to vote for that be my guest we don't happen to think and i think there are a significant number of our friends on the minority side of the aisle who don't happen to think that that's a good idea we do have to make choices and the basic choices here are do we want to defend a two percent increase in these programs above the president's level because that's what it is it's a two percent difference and if you don't believe my definition than take a look at c q a national journal because that's the way they define it do you want to put two percent more into health into the health of the country into the education of the country into the training of our work force or do you instead want to use it for additional money in iraq and additional money for tax cuts for the most wealthy people in this country most of home would gladly see a reduction in their take if we can improve the quality of our workforce the quality of our care education the quality of our law enforcement i plead fully guilty to agreeing with them and i would ask for a no vote on  and then at number seven printed in the congressional record offered by mr campbell of california pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand and seven the gentleman from california mr campbell a member opposed leach control fifteen minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from california thank you madam chair first of all i am happy to stand up here and identify myself with as the majority party says the fri you know you may have noticed recently that the approval ratings for this congress are not very good fact i think the latest i saw was that only seventeen percent of americans believe that this congress is doing a good or a fair job so i guess that being on the fringe of this congress is meaning that we agree and are so seeing ourselves with eighty three percent of the american people so i would tell my friends on the majority that i am very happy to be on the fringe in washington but on the mainstream outside of washington and the mainstream outside of washington wants to keep their own money to spend it on what they want and they believe that even if you don't madam chair even if they don't americans believe and they are right that government waste some of their tax money and what this proposed amendment does is it would increase spending on this bill by four point six percent instead of four point eight percent it is a reduction over what is proposed by a quarter of a percent a quarter of a percent it still provides an increase of six point six billion dollars over last year so under this amendment if there is a government program that is scheduled to get a million dollars it would instead have to struggle through on nine hundred  ninety seven thousand five hundred manager i would ask you i understand that it appears that the members the majority party believe that life as we know it will end if that million dollar government program must exist on nine hundred  ninety seven thousand five hundred dollars but i don't think the majority of americans feel that and let me point out again that first of all this amendment is not a because one equals one two is more than one even if you want three so this amendment still enables a gigantic six point six billion dollars increase in spending on this bill but what it would do is it would put three hundred seventy nine million dollars back in taxpayers pockets back towards deficit reduction so it is not a cut the other thing that's amazing to me in this whole debate and discussion is there seems to be a direct correlation madam chair on the majority side between how much you spend on something and the outcome you're going to get you know if that were the case you could take every school in america line them up by much money is spent spent per student and you should see a direct correlation with the outcomes with how those students succeed out of school while there are many situations where there are schools spending three four thousand dollars a student significantly out performing schools spending ten twelve fifteen thousand dollars a student in the same place why if there were a direct correlation madam chair between how much you spend on something in the outcome then wouldn't paris hilton be the most well adjusted kid on the planet i think perhaps she is not so does anybody out there believe that in this gigantic bill billions and billions of dollars that there's not one quarter of a percent of waste that there's not one quarter of a percent left that any given agency could do without than they have now now i know that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a very difficult time understanding what it means to save the taxpayers a little money what it means to ask government to be a little more efficient so i'd like to explain it to you graphically  this madam chair represents one hundred percent of a government program i've used donkey because i feel that that's something that the majority party has some familiarity with this represents one hundred percent of our government spending program so now let's look and see one percent what they requested let's look and see what we've seen so far today there was an amendment to reduce this program which is already increased by one percent so there's ninety nine percent of government spending program manager i would suggest that perhaps people in the gallery and people at home might not even be able to tell much of the difference but the majority party rejected that amendment from the lady from colorado was a half a percent reduction so here is ninety nine and a half percent of government spending program looks to me like that donkey is pretty much intact i think you could probably survive but that was rejected just a moment ago by the majority part so here's one last chance one more chance and i asked my democratic colleagues can this government program survive like that with ninety nine point seven five percent of that spending you know what i think the american people will look at this and say yeah they can because you know what it means it means three hundred seventy nine million dollars back in the american people's pockets and back to reduce this deficit and hopefully leading us towards no longer stealing the social security surplus and i don't think they see much difference here but they'll see difference at home and i'm sure i reserve the balance of my time these posters the three trillion dollars in debt that somebody part of this friendship supported when i wanted to spend more money on halliburton more money on tax cuts for big oil companies didn't see any amendments to cut those funds but now we see amendments to cut or reduce the amount of spending and investment in other funds and i would the madam chair through the chair asked the gentleman that if we were you know i guess and in washington two plus two can equal whatever you want to be if you listen to the other side madam chair but the gentleman seeks a cut and actual cut in abandoned infants assistance now this is a cut in the ne increased investment i would say to the chair in fact the funding for abandon infants assistance is at eleven million eight hundred thirty five thousand dollars for abandoned infants and if a gentleman would read the report he would note that it says this amount is the same as fiscal year two thousand and seven funding level no increase year madam chair i would ask the gentleman through the chair whether he is standing on this floor advocating an actual cut  the abandoned infants assistance program madam chair and i would yield to the gentleman if you would like to answer that specific question thank you you know the question before us is eleven million eight hundred thousand as i mentioned before is  cut from twelve million five hundred thousand so the question i would ask you back is well why is it not twelve million five hundred thousand that matter here is i reclaim my time the did the the gentleman has argued that a cuts really not  because the rate of spending is increasing the rate of spending does not increase in this program out of share it is the same spending as last year which means that the gentleman scott is an actual concrete specific documented reduction in aband infants assistance from last year that i'm sure i will go onto another program and through the chair as the gentleman if he would like to so he was unable to give me a yes or no question since the general is unable to give me a yes or no answer on the last example i will provide another one madam shares the judge will yield to the gentleman if he would like is the gentleman advocating an actual cut in well community based child abuse prevention because the funding for community based child abuse prevention is not increased in this budget not by a penny and so the gentleman is caught actually reduces it below last year's level madam chair there's a gentleman advocate for his constituents a cut in community based child abuse prevention and i'll yield to the gentleman if he desires to respond madam chair thank you for yelling you know i guess and i was trying to do the math on the previous one i guess the question before us is this can the program you just decide the one you described before because i'm a little behind in my math here there was eleven million eight hundred thousand dollars can it survive on eleven million seven hundred eighty thousand dollars is that going to mean the end of the world we go as we know it is that going to mean that this program is devastated are you telling me that there is not a quarter of a percent that any agency or any program in government can find that they can do their job the way i mean my time i'm suggesting look at what it was a quarter point a quarter percent when it came to a thirteen billion dollars tax cut for the biggest oil company executives on earth and there was more than a quarter percent cut when it came to excessive fraudulent payments to halliburton but when it comes to runaway youth domestic violence law and order abandoned infants and gang programs i would rather that the money go to those investments rather than the special interests and so i would ask again to the gentleman through the chair is the i'm in advocating a cut in adoption opportunities because the adoption opportunities program out of share is funded without any increase at the same level as year with the gentleman agree madam chair that the cuts that he proposes needs an actual cut in the program for adoption opportunities from last year's level with the gentleman agree that at least can we agree that two plus madam chair a variety of programs that didn't receive one penny of increase in this budget in this appropriation and i have asked the gentleman will he will the gentleman acknowledge that his amendment is an actual cut on these programs adoption assistance abstinence any gang activities safe and stable families domestic violence is it actually a tut below last year's level yes or no and i would yield to the gentleman for a yes or no answer if you already established it is a cut below last year's level then yes it is but i would ask the gentleman that is the gentleman proposing to increase the deficit which is which with this amendment the deficit would go down and taxpayers would have more floor i actually thought based on the other things i was doing today that the case has been well made that a seven billion dollar increase is an increase and i didn't plan to come to the floor this afternoon i had a number of other things i was working on that i thought were important i was watching the debate and assuming that the case was being well made until i heard in the last debate that a four point three percent increase was a cut and i was so stunned by that a four point three increase percent increase was a cut a six something billion dollar increase was a of the seven billion that the majority hopes to increase was a cut that i decided i'd come to the floor for a minute and i've been amazed on the floor and what i've heard i've heard the the gentleman just ask a series of questions about the abandon emphasis assistance program that's the same funding as last year's level the community based child abuse program prevention program that's the same funding as last year's level adoption opportunities that i believe i heard were below last year's level and i'm not asking the gentleman specifically this question but i'm asking myself this question why is that why is that then abandoned emp and assistance could be funded at last year's level and somehow that's appropriate is that less important than it was last year is it less important than the many unauthorised things that this bill funds for the first time ever why is it that we're not doing more as the past congress always tried to do more in i d e a why is it that n i m h in the debate we heard yesterday the national institute of health didn't deserve the funding that the ranking member of the of the educator of the energy and commerce that inflationary level about community based child abuse prevention the gentleman from california is saying let's just cut this by one quarter of one percent one quarter of one percent  a growth of still almost seven billion dollars but instead we're funding the unauthorised full service schools that now why are we funding the unauthorised full service schools act we can't find enough money to keep adoption opportunities at least last year's level i'm amazed by what i've heard here on the floor why is it we're funding the unauthorised sexual education program why is it th grants to local education that could be funded at twenty five billion because that's what the congress in the passage says we could allow kind of an extra thirty seconds i'd like to give the general from the very next thirty seconds our only funded and fourteen point four billion dollars part of the problem here is that once again we're authorizing on appropriations bill we're trying to come up with new programs instead of fulfill the promise of the last program of the last programs i d e a took major growth in funding in the last ten years but we haven't sustain that level in this bill because we're trying to fund new things and i just close by saying chairman that every american knows that yield three minutes the general from california member the committee mr shift gentlemen california is recognized for three minutes i think to jennifer yielding and i want to address some the arguments and i want to say about my friends on the other side of the aisle because in fact my friends on the other side of the aisle in committee the republican members uniformly supported this bill and support this bill so i have to say that i dress these remarks to a minority of the minority the self applied fringe that we've been describing we're talking to today the beginning of their argument was well we we want to cross the board cuts we don't really want have to identify exactly what we're cutting that's a little hard to sell back home so we're going to across the board cuts it's all more palatable that we said well let's look at where we're cutting and then the argument was ok they're not cuts they're reduction in the increase so then we point out well actually you're giving the impression that everything is being increased everything is not being increased many things are being kept flat so aren't we really cutting those things that are flat in the budget and my friends in the minority the minority said yes i guess that's right i guess we are really making real cuts with these across the board proposals but let's not really look at what we are cutting that's that's not very of active and my friend says ok so if we're making real cuts is it really the end of the world if we're making real cuts well i guess it depends on who you ask one of the things we're making a real cut to is the bone marrow program is at the end of the world for us here in congress to make a real cut real dollar terms the bone marrow program well it may not be to any of us at this moment but for some child out there it just may be the end of the world for some parent of that child some parent has to watch their child suffer with cancer the an ability to get a bone marrow transplant and the failure of research into bone marrow transplants just might be the end of the world for that parent as well as that child what are the things that my friend would make real cuts to he'd make real cuts to scholarships for disadvantaged students he'd make real cuts for nurse education does my friend think we have more nurses then we need he'd make real cuts for emergency medical services for children again is that the end of the world well for one child it just might be it make real cuts for organ transplantation real cuts for the national cord blood inventory is that the end of the world well for some child maybe not our children it just might be we would make real cuts under the gentleman's amendment to children's mental health as at the end of the world well for a child who ends up taking their own life it just might be the end of the world it sounds a lot more palatable when we say well it's a one percent cut or it's a half a percent cut is at the end of the world well for one child it just tennessee misliked for the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes thank you madam chairman you know this is so interesting listening to this fiscal the bay and talking about we are the french well let me tell you french is a great acronym and let me tell you what french is a great acronym for and i think it is very appropriate for those of us on our side of the aisle because french means this  responsibility includes no government excess fiscal responsibility includes no government excess now my friends my colleagues madam chairman that is what the people tell us they want to get this fiscal house in order that is what they want they don't want you to spend more they want you to spend less government does not have a revenue problem government has a spending problem and all of this about across the board cuts don't work if i may tell you why across the board cuts do work madam chairman the reason is that you have the opportunity within the department to decide where you would like to re and i would recommand as with many of our states you go winning you make those reductions out of the bureaucracy you don't have to take one single penny out of any program you can take it out of the bureaucracy that is where you go and that is why across the board work cuts work that is why they use them in state after state after state because they have balanced budget amendment because they cannot spend more than the rate of growth of the economy in that state they work and yes fiscal responsibility includes no government access now yes there is some real long french down there because it's weighed down by great big overblown heavy bureaucratic government programs that do not respond to the needs of the american people i think it is time that we say let's get this under control it is the hold on to your wallet congress if we're not happy they will leave you in tatters not french i yell back gentlemen this time expires the gentleman from new york and i'm sure i don't know if every single republican on the appropriations committee who supported this bill would appreciate being called big spenders are fiscally responsible i'm very pleased that the mainstream republicans and democrats work together on this and i don't know where all the talk was about fiscal responsibility when we were appropriating thirteen billion dollars in tax cuts for big oil companies and spending money on fraudulent overpayments and no bid contracts to halliburton and i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from california member the committee m mention let me just thank the gentleman for yielding and for your diligence in this debate also i'd just like to briefly make a couple points with regard this whole notion of government excess when you look at the for example military budget we all strong support a strong national security a strong military however military budget close to five hundred billion dollars when you look at the waste fraud and abuse that is in this military budget and also when you look at a measly sixty billion dollars that should be cut in cold war era weapons systems i can't for the life of me figure out why we can't get the the kind of scrutiny and the laser focus on this government excess over at the pentagon it makes a lot of sense to me if you really  put you know your your deeds and your words in to some kind of real action as it relates to our federal budget so let me just say something about these cross the board cuts and who they impact when you look at  our future when you look at our young people when you look at individuals who deserve a second chance such as xo fenders who have done their time who now want to pick up with their lives who need education job training vocational training when you look at our health care system that's in shambles when you look at our young people in the dropout rates and the type of afterschool programs and dropout prevention programs that we're talking about these cross the board cuts in many ways would decimate these programs which means that certain segments of our society who need this kind of safety net and need these kinds of initiatives would just drop through the safety net what whatever is left of that safety net has for the most part it has been decimated over the last few years and also many of these people do change federal taxes i deserve some of their federal taxes batman another minute please you know i hear you all talk about tax cuts and the american people deserve and their tax dollars back to spend more right fine you know many of these programs that you're talking about cutting are programs that are designed to help those who do pay taxes who do these are some of their federal taxes back and who do deserve to live and see the the american dream just like anybody else who makes one hundred thousand dollars or more and so i would hope that some type of rational thinking would prevail out of this debate today and rethink some of these notions of cutting initiatives and cutting the safety net out of those that really need it the most those that the american dream is still a nightmare for and those that if we listened and did what you all want us to do we would have more homeless on the streets we'd have more people just hanging on  twilight of their lives and i think that we need to know that this budget that the chairman has crafted today really will now and have quality of life for millions of americans thank you and i thank you for you will do nothing california teachers thank you madam chair just one comment for my colleague from california let me just say i completely agree with you that the pentagon is not immune from waste fraud and abuse nor is the defense budget nor is any part of the federal government so i agree with you the word cut means i took the opportunity to go look it up in the dictionary i would invite my democrat colleagues to do the same they might find a reduction in amount only in washington madam chairman would somebody call an increase of four point six percent a cut people all over america would love to have their salaries then cut if it would only increase four point six percent now i think i just heard the previous speakers say that people who pay taxes ought to get some of their money back well maybe it shouldn't be taken from them in the first place but let's go back to the term cut because the only budgets that are being cut here today are the family budgets of hardworking americans all across this land it's their budgets that are being cut the budgets like the floors family and garland who says i'm a divorced mother with a wild in college and a child in daycare when you increase taxes you're going to wipe out the hope of the first college graduate in the family and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that's the budget they're cutting they're cutting the floors family budget they're cutting their education program they're cutting the education program of the movement tetter family enchant chandler this largest single tax increase in history that they're imposing on the american people they write and if i have to pay more taxes then i can't afford to go to school once again democrats cutting education budgets for families in america they're cutting the health budget as well madam speaker i heard from the winners family in tennessee colony please would you do what you can to stop the wasteful spending i'm retired i'm disabled i'm raising three grandchildren and one great grandchild i sometimes can't afford my own medicine the only budgets that are being cut here are the democrats cutting the health budgets and education budgets of the american thank you no thank the gentleman and you know we're here we have an interesting contrast here we have these self described fringe legislators that are here on the floor speaking up know you might you know call them extremists or radicals whatever but but we also in comparison to that now we have a an incredible bipartisan process that has been going on this this subcommittee met for many many hours the labor rate subcommittee chaired by our our wonderful chairman chairman obion and ranking member walsh met for many hours and came up with a bipartisan bill and then that bill was presented to sixty six members of this house in a full appropriations hearing and it was approved not a single member of the sixty six members voted against that bill they all approved on send it on to the floor and so you have this marvelous work product that members have put many many hours into and and they've labored over in there and you know this is this is a limit and i would i ask for just a few more seconds here one thing that's clear there's an increase in this bill as written there's an increase of six point six billion dollars in the deficit over what there would be if if this bill bill health spending fla that's an increase in raiding the social security surplus and that will lead to the many tax increases that your side is currently proposing both in your budget and in other bills floating around in both this chamber and the other those are increases have heard in this debate that they're not really to the other side is not really cutting programs they're cutting the rate of growth of programs but we provided about a dozen programs that get no increase in this budget that in fact will be cut from last year so the fact the matter is that these cuts are real and these cuts hurt families now this is all about choices madam chair and it goes back to this not a single member of this fringe group who disagrees with their own republican caucus that supported this bill on the appropriations committee came to this floor to argue for a two percent cut a one percent cut a five percent cut a point five percent cut when it came time to give thirteen billion dollars to big oil companies then there was plenty of money to go around but now the argument is we can't afford to give people who want to send their kids to college and increasing pell grants madam chair not a single amendment was offered by this fringe group when it was caught time to provide halliburton with dollar after dollar after dollar so that one point four seven billion dollars was found to be fraudulent in excess of i haven't i didn't hear a single one of this fringe group madam chair come to the floor and argue for a cut i thank the  we've heard a lot of bloviating on this floor today about whether something is a cut to whether it is in the cut and we've had this boy scout debate about the dictionary terms but the real question to ask about this bill is simply to ask is it at what to the needs of the country do we really need to simply continue the status quo by going back to last year's level or do we need to recognize that there is more than one deficit in the country do we really think that we can afford to continue to avoid dealing with the deficit in educational quality the deficit in health care access the deficit in work or training do we really think that we can avoid or that we can afford to avoid investing to increase the number of quality teachers in this country do we think that we need to do more or not to help millions of kids who need a better deal in special education do we need to do more than we are doing now to help workers who lose their life's work because of the forces of globalization do are we comfortable continuing to see the number of research grants for cancer for heart disease for parkinson's disease continue to decline or do we think that we ought to make an investment a collective societal investment so that we can do more to attack those diseases those are values questions and that's what we have to decide here today this amendment is largely symbolic it gives people a chance on both sides to talk some more as though we have a god help us talked enough already but we're now roughly at the point where we will have to decide what our priorities are this bill is about two percent above the president's budget for these items that we're talking about we're talking about devoting two percent more of the federal budget than the president wants to devote to deal with the deficits in education health care job training worker protection and the each member is invited in my view to make their own choice but i think the choice is clear we have had a huge increase in the gap between the richest people in this country and everybody else over the past twenty years this bill attempts to deal with the results of that gap by providing additional grace notes to help the people who haven't been in th top one percent so they get a little better deal in sending their kids to college so that they get a little better deal in being able to find doctors who will take care of them without begging in a community health clinic so they can find some job training so they may be can get a job that pays two thirds of what their job paid before they were bounced because of bad trade deals or globalization that's what this bill attempts to do it has traditionally had a bipartisan support through the years in this country there would be a shame if that bipartisan support didn't continue i urge rejection of the amendment and support for the underlying bill from indiana and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks that objection that i yield myself one gemma's recognize allow me to say there are many good things happening at federally funded family planning clinics nationwide five million american serve ninety percent of whom are low income nine hundred thousand unintended pregnancies were voted by title ten family planning funding and it's reassuring that abstinence education is required for all adolescent clients but today i'm offering a moment that's very very simple handsome and states that no funds under title ten may be granted to planned parenthood planned parenthood is the largest recipient of title ten funding and it is the largest abortion provider in america last year alone planned parenthood's own annual report states that it received more than a third of its billion dollar budget from government contracts and grants and again according to their annual report planned parenthood performs more than a quarter of a million abortions millions of pro life americans should not be asked to fund the leading abortion provider in the united states now let me stipulate i know that title ten funds may not be used for abortion and my mema does not cut or reduce the budget for family chairwoman though i really wish that the gentleman had not offered this amendment and let me be very frank i spent most of the last six months trying to convince democrats primarily liberals or now in control in control of the house i've tried to persuade them not to try to use their new majority to change any language in this bill that had anything to do with abortion or family planning i've asked them in an effort to provide bipartisan support for this bill to recognize other people's values as well as their own and i've asked them therefore to leave alone the six abortion related or family planning provisions which are in the existing law which many on the side of the iowa polls and some on the other side of the aisl i've asked them to leave alone the hyde amendment i've asked them to leave alone dr weldon's amendment and i've had some real fights on the side of the aisle about that not just with people in my caucus but with a lot of outside groups a lot of like minded people on the left will get together and talk and after they talk to each other they think they've taken a public opinion poll and i've asked them to lay off this bill so that we can try to find common ground on on an issue that's divided us for so long and we put together an initiative which provided  well over half a billion dollars in special funding for programs to help discourage women from having abortions and we've been able to keep that issue out of here and i've asked members not to offer amendments on any of these items but now in return for that we get from the other side of the aisle from one gentleman we get an amendment that in essence upsets the apple cart i think that's unfortunate i can't do a whole lot about it but i think the the what this amendment really does the gentleman knows that in a member like this would not survive a survive conference anyway and yet it's being offered and what it does at the last minute is to blow  up a consensus which we've tried to build over the last three days that we all ought to be willing to live under the law same laws that we were living under when the republicans were controlling this house and when they passed the legislation that i'm now defending so i would simply ask the gentleman in the interest of our being able to work together in these issues i would ask the gentleman withdraw his amendment he doesn't like planned parenthood i don't care whether planned parenthood gets money or not what i do care about is that the women who are certain by planned parenthood get the services to which they're intitled under the constitution and so i would ask the gentleman in the interest of of the bipartisan true neutrality that we've tried to build over the past two months i would ask the gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment and i thank you gentlemen for the time madam speaker i rise in support of the pence amendments management planned parenthood claims to work to reduce abortions but happens to be the number one abortion provider in this country this raises an obvious question why are taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize the largest abortion supplier in the united states planned parenthood clinics receive funding in the name of their family planning services however there are many clinics in which family planning and abortion services are colocated in the same building share a common set of basic resources out one door and into the other abortion services generate more net revenue when clinics can rely on federal dollars to pay for lighting heating building maintenance and even rent plan parent hood receives a record breaking three hundred and five million dollars in taxpayer funding and they made record profits last year and what did they do with those record profits last year planned parenthood perform two hundred and sixty five thousand abortions the most ever in a year i urge my colleagues to oppose this federal backdoor subsidy of planned parenthood the world's largest abortion provider and support the pension mehmet now you're back title ten of the public health services act which is our most vulnerable populations as a primary source of reproductive health services for low income women lowering the rate of unintended pregnancies reducing the need for abortion and decreasing infant mortality and mor is good public policy for many women planned parenthood is their only source of health care and some states like wisconsin utah in my own connecticut planned parenthood are the only title ten provider it sees sixty five thousand patients a year in connecticut provides critical family planning infrastructure in our state this amendment would be devastating especially for the thousands of women whose sole source of medical care is these clinics this amendment plainly discriminates against the uninsured leaving the most vulnerable in our society in the most helpless situation if we truly do value if we value as we say we do women's health we cannot sabotage title ten we cannot strip chairman whose work on this legislation i acknowledge heartily but as to the issue of protecting all the values that the republican majority advanced i would hasten to remind that the in the foreign operations bill we did great violence to the historic mexico city policy that change came we must and the practice of funding planned parenthood with that i yield one minute to the generally from tennessee manager generally from tennessee is recognized for one minute thank you madam chairman i would remind one of the previous speakers that there are no title can cut in this amendment what this amendment does is to state that planned parenthood cannot receive those funds planned parenthood in zero five did perform two hundred sixty five thousand abortions that is something that we know i think it's also important for us to note that it was planned parenthood who was the lead plaintiff in the legal challenge against the partial birth abortion ban legislation that is now the law of the land and this is the right move i command a gentleman from indiana for bringing the amendment forward and for bringing to our attention the need to make certain that taxpayer dollars are not used in abortion clinics around this nation and i yell back the balance the button gentleman yield back pro life and others who call themselves pro choice and many of them are deeply convicted of the her views on this issue now the question before us today is is it reasonable to force people who really do believe that abortion is killing children is it reasonable to force them to pay money to subsidize that killing is that respectful to do that planned parenthood is the biggest abortion provider in america is it reasonable to compel some of our constituents who believe that this is killing to take part in that not only that thank you back and miss me and fifteen thousand times the number of lives lost in the nine one one terrorist attack planned parenthood is the foremost promoter and provider of abortion on demand for any reason or no reason in the last fiscal year this government appropriated more than three hundred million dollars to this death dealing organization madness but chair it has been said that a government is what it spends for this government to appropriate one penny of the taxpayers money to an organization that kills unborn children and emotionally impoverishes their mothers is a disgrace that undermines the core essence of the united states of america and betrays everything that our soldiers lying out in arlington national cemetery died to preserve and that i'm sure i urge my colleagues to find here is not planned parenthood the issue is whether women have a right to have full access to family planning state health departments run fifty seven percent of the clinics that receive title ten funds planned parenthood affiliates operate fourteen percent of title ten supported  clinics hospitals and family planning clinics and other non privates make up the rest of the title ten clinic system under the law none of these funds can be spent for abortion but planned parenthood clinics use their title ten funding to provide family planning services to millions of women and it is those women who would be hurt today by this action not planned parenthood a vote against the amendment it seems to me that we ought to be content to live under the same arrangements that we were content to live under when the republican congresses are writing the law it seems to me that we need to be finding ways to avoid dividing the congress and dividing the country because of our this amendment has nothing to do with abortion it has everything to do with whether are not we are trying to find common ground on this cluster of issues and whether or not women are going to be allowed to get the services they need in the areas where the only services available to them come from this of her from the organization in question and with that i yield to the gentleman from ohio i thank the gentleman i would like to just say i have voted for the ban on partial birth abortion i consider myself a pro life democrat but i will say that this amendment will increase the number of abortions that are performed fifty percent of abortions are performed on women who live within two hundred percent of poverty if they don't have access to prevention they will end up getting an abortion and i believe that if we truly want to prevent abortions from happening in the united states of america we have an obligation a moral obligation to fund programs like this and prevent on intended pregnancies those are the poor women who end up going to abortion clinics and having abortions let's abortions by rejecting prevent the number of abortions from increasing by rejecting this amendment and the more money we spend on prevention that will mean we will continue to reduce the number of abortions and i want to thank the gentleman for working on on this with us and you'll back my phone madam speaker this amendment is not related to abortion this amendment is a frontal assault on family planning make no mistake about it whether you are pro life or whether you are pro choice or madam chairman i write in opposition to this and then an associate myself with the remark and the oakland statement of chairman obie and my colleagues and i speak from the perspective of a nurse who worked for many years with these women and their families in the community i'm from title ten is our nation's primary program to provide family planning services according to the good marker institute title ten has been so successful that for every public dollar invested in family planning three dollars are saved  medicaid coast costs alone for pregnancy a newborn care and hundreds of communities across this country the nonprofit planned parenthood is a major implementation of precisely the reproductive health care necessary to carry out effective family planning and to reduce unintended pregnancies and they are contributing these nonprofit organizations to the successful implementation of title ten services so i urge my colleagues to stand for family values and to vote against this amendment so that you can protect your constituents access to proven effective family planning services which have as their goal to reduce can advocate the title penn program provides comprehensive family planning services as well as a wide range of other preventative health care services including breast exams and instructional breast self examination pap tests for early detection of cervical cancer are pre cancerous conditions testing for high blood pressure screening inappropriate treatment sexually transmitted infection hiv screening counseling or adoption foster care and pregnancy termination referrals to specialize healthcare pursuant to federal statute no title ten funds may be spent on abortions the question was race is it reasonable that someone to consider a member of the american society to to fine for abortions when they find abortions up for it but that's not the question before us the question before us is is it reasonable to deprive women of reproductive information and services to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore even avoid the question of whether or not to have a prayer in abortion and the answer is no this is about family planning planned parenthood is the nation's leading reproductive health care provider over ninety years planned parenthood has provided low income uninsured and under insured women with vital reproductive health care services they need and i conclude by saying currently planned parenthood operates health care centers in every state in the nation serving over five million men women and teens and their communities each year the services planned parenthood provides are needed and to deprive them of this funny i think would be a colossal mistake i thank the gentleman for yielding thanks gentlemen at this time  yield such time as you may consume to the author of the amendment john with mediums pass i think my colleague from new york for his extraordinary courtesy and let me say i regret that this debate will only take fifteen minutes it is a great and serious matter and i think the dignity with which it's been conducted thus far as evidence of the capacity of this congress to discuss even the most contentious issues of our time in a manner that that reflects civility and favorably on the institution now that being said let me let me clear up a few points this is not as the chairman said quote a frontal assault on and some member states plainly that no funds under title ten may be granted to planned parenthood planned parenthood is the largest recipient of title ten funding and it's also the largest abortion provider in america and as to whether we are living under the same arrangements as the chairman said and i respectfully quote same arrangements under republican rule it seems to me just a short time ago we saw this new majority overturn much of the decades long mexico city policy that prevented federal dollars from going to organizations overseas that provide abortion for family planning well gentleman yield i will not yield respectfully i think this nation needs a domestic mexico city policy and frankly if the common ground that this congress has reach means tens of millions of federal tax dollars going to the largest abortion provider in america that is not a common ground i can accept say no to federal funds for planned parenthood in title ten say yes to family planning funding through title ten say yes to the  i have a number section for ten immigration nationality act clerk will designate moment number thirty eight printed in the congressional record offered by mr king of iowa pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday july eighteenth two thousand and seven the gentleman smiling mr king and a member opposed leaves control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa the gentleman from i will you i would yield we have been asking members through the day if they would drop their remarks if we accept their amendments so that members can catch their play and with the gentlemen be willing to do that as chairman i'm very amenable to that process of doing business about every time i come to the floor and i'll be happy to thank you for the accepted member of this side of the aisle and i would i would number thirty seven printed in the congressional record offered by mr king of iowa pursuant to the law of the house on wednesday july eighteenth the gentleman from iowa mr king is a member a post which control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa  work on both sides of the aisle by some very dedicated people mr walsh is the new ranking member on this subcommittee but he has performed like an old timer and i am proud of the fact that the subcommittee worked hard on hearings and i am proud of the fact that we have largely come together on substance i would hope that that would be recognized by the endorsement of many members on both sides of the aisle when the roll call vote is opened this bill is not a matter of accounting this bill is not a matter of political theory or political party platforms this bill more of the in any other meets the needs of all of those in society who are not among the most well connected in the most privileged but even for the most well connected in privileged this bill provides a lot because all of us benefit every time a child is educated all of us benefit every time an american citizen gets the health care he or she needs all of us benefit every time a worker is educated so that our workforce becomes more competitive all of us benefit when when a single teacher achieves new skills there is nothing in the world more damaging than a dull or a bad teacher and there is nothing more wonderful than a well trained and talented one and so i would urge members to recognize that the issue isn't whether some program is defined as a cut or an increase the issue isn't whether we like the president of the united states or not the issue is whether or not we are building the kind of country we want to have over the next ten years to do that it takes investments and yes investments cost money and yes i plead fully guilty to wanting to provide even more than we can in this bill but it is essential if we want to be remain competitive it is essential if we if we want to have equal access to opportunity in this country it essential that we invest in bills like this and i thank the gentleman from from new york for his assistance in trying to do just that as well as every other member of the committee and subcommittee there is a reason why there were no the votes expressed in opposition to this bill in the full committee and that's because this is the people's bill it is the product of input from each and every member from the most conservative to the most liberal and i think there is not a member of the subcommittee who would not verify that without i yield to the gentleman thank the gentleman for yielding and for my part it was a it was a great experience going through this five months with you was a lot of work i think i speak for the set for the staff as well when i say we're all pretty tired from all the work that we've done and of course a to put together a continuing resolution and a supplemental to boot so i know i join the chairman in thanking the staff for the remarkable work that they've done both sides of the aisle these are professional people who who obviously care deeply about these issues but they're not as concerned about the partisan aspects of this is we are when when the chairman talked about our experience or together we combined about fifty seven years of experience here in the congress now most of that side falls on on his watch and not mine but i'm getting up there too and it's great it's it's great to be able to work with someone who who has the command of these issues that he does and i remember asking him and i've said this a couple times i remember asking him why in god's green earth would you want to be chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee also and he said because he because the subcommittee issues are the issues i came here for thirty eight years ago and he's making a mark on them today and you know there's been some partisan back and forth here which is as it should be the founding fathers wanted us to have a clash of ideas they wanted us to have the opportunity cherry strike the last word janice rankin at siteman they wanted us to to have the contest of ideas here that the fight should be over words and ideas and that was not with now it was swords and and other weaponry and but mostly what we've done is we've we've found what we disagree on and talked about it but overall overwhelmingly both sides of the republicans and democrats agree that the the issues in this bill are priorities for the nation maybe we think we should spend five percent less or they think they should spend five percent more and i don't want to i don't want to  discount the differences there are big differences between the two parties and i'm very proud that our party on our watch did balance the federal budget did producer plus's before a crisis of international proportions affected us in two thousand and one but but suffice to say that i have great respect for the gentleman from wisconsin over the years he has made me as mad as anyone else because sometimes his arguments are just too good to argue with and so let me just end by saying thank you to him for honoring our requests i think we worked out a pretty good bill here and i would musgrave of colorado member number seven by mr campbell of california member number sixty seven by mr pence of indiana the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic votes after the first vote in the series finished business on the request for recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from kentucky mr davis on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nos prevailed by voice vote the clerk will read designate the amendment amendment offered by mr davis of kentucky