read the bill. anybody that doubts that republicans are targeting medicare, look at what the budget committee is doing. it will be there in black and white when it's published. it will be there and it states unequivocally that medicare as we know it will be ended. senior citizens, according to the c.b.o., will pay more and get less. that is not what i think the american people want. i would just remind my colleagues that as a new poll that came out, 66% of seniors reject the plans to end medicare as we know it. so, you know, i think if you interpret the results of the last election to go after medicare and seniors' health care i think you misread the results of the last election. the last election was about jobs. we all need to come together and protect jobs and help creation of more jobs in this country. you want to end the deficit, put people back to work. here we are in april and yet you have yet to bring one single bill to this floor that helps create jobs and helps protect jobs. we need to -- m

bill 388. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful and ensure that members of congress don't get paid during a shutdown of government and has a real chance of being enacted into law and signed by president obama. i urge a no vote on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. and i appreciate the gentleman from colorado for this wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today. madam speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the clean air act or the regulation of air pollution. it does interfere with the e

woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess wt must be happening here is we are wasting our time on unconstitional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hastings: we are wasting our time on pate antley unconstitutional measures. i won't go into all of the details about the need to address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people. but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is reco

i cannot tell you what his bill will look like, what senator schumer's bill will look like. what i can say it is all those pieces work together to ultimately come up with something that is hopefully, at least, something that we can create a foundation from. comprehensive immigration reform has to be broad enough to make -- give us the foundation to build more, but i do not think it will be done at that point. there will be a lot of issues that will not happen in the first go round that will need to be perfected, but me to do enough to turn immigration into something that is not so politicized and is more about really getting down to the problems. i wanted to address briefly some by pointing out, you cannot always tell what will happen based on one set of votes. in the dhhs appropriations bill for 2010, in the senate, and there were a lot of horrible amendments to make e-verify mandatory, inshore every inch of the fence was real, we get ensure every inch of the fence was real, not virtual. -- ensure every inch of the fence was real, not virtual. a lot of people said, my goodn

rogers taking on bill from last year and putting it into this bill. the community services block grant program is restored. w.i.c. is restored. head start is restored. yes, there's some things i don't like. no high speed rail money. some other investment accounts. literacy programs, some of them were taken away. some of the cuts in homeland security were not the best. but as with any compromise some members will see a glass half full and some will see a glass half empty. members will have to consider all the ramifications of this compromise and vote their conscience. we need to move on to the f.y. 2012 appropriations bill. the bottom line is this bill must pass today. let's get it done so we can fight against the ryan republican budget. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you

was next bill's in the early '80s-- and steve would be saying to bill "bill, you've got to hire more people. we need to hire 35 people just to fulfill our contrt obligations" and bill would be saying "steve, what if we don't get more contracts? somebody could go bankrupt?" and steve would say "i don't care, but we have to hire these people." anyway, you can imagine that and the door basically almost vibrating from the intensity of their discussion. >> rose: so that brings me to the conflict between the two of you. what was at its score in >> you know, i think bill and i were kind of i didn't know and yang in terms of our ability to talk about a tough question and hash it out. i think there was a stylistic difference in terms of intensity and how... and the way he discussed things because i'm very logical person, some might say low key and bill and steve lead with lots and lots of intensity so there was a stylistic difference there and as things evolved not only that but as things evolved i became more and more focused just on the technology side and bill and steve on the business sid

a bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about and a bill we don't want. if my -- the rules committee refused to recognize my amendment which would redirect the money to the d.c. public schools and to our own public charter schools, 40% of our children go to this alternative, it has a long waiting list, to our choice, not the republicans' choice. the second amendment would strike a shameful -- the second -- my second amendment would strike a second writer that keeps the district from spending our own local taxpayer raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income women. local money, local choice. the majority proposed to close down the government rather than pass my amendment to allow d.c. to spend its own local funds. now, the majority wants a rule with amendments that profoundly affect only the district of columbia. i will have no vote on this floor on any part of this bill. no wonder -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i appreciate the gentleman. the majority will allow a vote on every other member -- i wond

there is a reduction in the defense bill in this bill. for those of who you are concerned that it might have had an adverse effect on our nation's defense, it will not. we don't want to make very many more cuts in the defense bill because today we all know what the requirement is. there's discussion at the white house and with the secretary of defense who almost seem to disagree now that there should be more cuts, mo draconian cuts. you can't do that. you can't just pick out a number for defense out of the air. you can't roll the dice. you can't spin the wheel. you've got to make your funding and your investment in national defense based on what is the threat to this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to congressman mike walz, distinguished leader here in the house, from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkans

that's all this bill does. it's not affecting fuel efficiency standards that nhtsa states, that nhtsa regulates and will continue to regulate. it doesn't have anything to do with that. we're simply saying greenhouse gases should not be regulated under the existing clean air act. we disagree with the supreme court decision that gave the e.p.a. the authority to make a decision and we definitely disagree with the endangerment finding which i think was fatally flawed. you know, we can do a lot on decreasing oil imports both by supply increases in the united states and letting the market operate in an efficient fashion. we don't need the e.p.a. to have some sort of a strangle hold on oil production -- strangle hold on oil production in the united states of america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute remaining. mr. markey: and how much time does the other side have? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has one minute remaining. mr. markey: and who has the ri

a bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about and a bill we don't want. if my -- the rules committee refused to recognize my amendment which would redirect the money to the d.c. public schools ando our own public charter schools, 40% of our children go to this alternative, it has a long waiting list, to our choice, not the republicans' choice. the second amendment would strike a shameful -the second -- my second amendment would strike a second writer that keeps the district from spending our own local taxpayer raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income women. local money, local choice. the majority proposed to close down the government rather than pass my amendment to allow d.c. to spend its own local funds. now, the majority wants a rule with amendments that profoundly affect only the district of columbia. i will have no vote on this floor on any part of this bill. no wonder -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i appreciate the gentleman. the majority will allow a vote on every other member -- i wonder i

in your civics books from eighth grade, that is a bill, and these members voted on this bill. they are invested, and this is a legislative product, and they are not going to walk away from that which they voted for and debated in full public view for four straight days in lieu of the senate bill that does not even exist in their mind. has not gone through the legislative process, does not have its heft. so they ask why theyul

so i think that whatever bill is offered and whether it's a bipartisan bill, which i hope it is bipartisan, whatever gets offered -- and i'm not quite sure at the moment who's going to be the lead sponsor. i have looked at the legislation offered by the two senators i mentioned before. but however it comes down -- and sometimes here in the senate things can change on you for various rngs. but however it comes down, i hope we will not only consider but will pass legislation that will protect our active duty men and women and our reserve component and the coast guard. we can't forget the for-profit guard -- we continent forget the coast guard. they soirve country just like everybody else and they deserve to be included in this. and also we need to give the secretary of defense the discretion so that he can run his department in a way that won't weaken us. he need needs that discretion. whatever that may mean. again, we may have some differences on the details and one senator may thing one thing. but the bottom line, we need to give him enough discretion to make sure that during that time whe

we could pass a member pay bill today and take the senate bill from the desk. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful and that is deal with the pay of the president and the congress and actually has a chance because it has already passed the senate of being enacted into law. i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: this has been an interesting experience for me as a freshman member of congress and a co-sponsor of the underlying legislation. i haven't had my motives impugned quite as much in the previous days as i've been impugned today. we're trying to m

bill ayers in the spotlight. once again we'll play you his shout down with radio talk show host larry elder and get larry's reaction, coming up. >> sean: welcome back. we continue now with the final installment of my interview with donald trump. i spent more time than anybody in the media on the issue of reverend wright and bill ayers. he was asked one question, he's a guy in the neighborhood. we discovered he started his political career in bill ayers house. he gave speeches with him and sat onboards with him. >> acted like he hardly knew him. >> sean: his answer is he is some guy in the neighborhood. on 9/11 of all days he had that in "the new york times." media ignores it. reverend wright i was fortified by him he rode around listening to tapes of him. he's like family to me. of course ego thrown under the bus. there's a picture in that church magazine -- >> both of these guys hate obama because he dropped them. there's one thing, i'm like a loyalist. i have people that -- i try to be loyal. he's a very disloy

i rise in support of this bill, the bill to fund our tros. the last congress failed to pass a budget and that's why we're here, that's why we're debating these c.r.'s. this ctinuing resolution is the right outcome, not only for the american people but for our military. this isn't a democratic or a republan issue. this is what's best for the american people and most iortantly what's best for our troops. give them certainty, give them what ty need to keep us safe and allow us to be here today with this debate. i thank you and i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized in place of the gentleman from washington. >> madam speaker, if the very distinguished chair of e committee wants to yield back we'll yield back as well. mr. moran: in the spirit of comity. i yield -- mr. rogers will close. mr. rogers: if the gentleman will yield, i have one other speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i recognize the gentleman from arkansas

ultimately, the bill passed out. that committee had been -- they had a number of members that resided entirely within santa clara county. going in, we have a feel for how that might turn out. the recommendation to the management here, and the city and county representatives, is that as this bill continues through the assembly and goes through appropriations, we need to jump ahead and start working the senate transportation committee, so they do not wait for that activity. that committee is not welcoming for northern california and has very few representatives, but does have knowledgeable chairman. i think that he will give us a fair fight. we have our work cut out for us on this measure. we thought that we had some sympathy going in the committee in terms of reaching consensus in the legislature. ntc was very vigorous in its support for the bill and were able to convince the folks that it was an isolated pocket of resistance within the region. so, that was all that took. supervisor elsbernd: in terms of ultimate outc

the house bill will get -- the house bill we'll get today does precisely that. democratic leaders have identified a number of cuts they believe are reasonable. the spending cuts that the house bill will get today go no farther than that. democrat leaders have said they wanted no controversial policy riders. that's what we just heard our majority leader talking about. but the policy provisions in the bill we'll get today are provisions that members of the democratic leadership have already voted for and that the president himself has previously signed into law. it will be pretty hard to argue that that's controversial. so here's the bottom line. the bill does everything democrats have previously said they want. it cuts washington spending by an amount that democratic leaders believe is reasonable. the policy prescriptions it contains have been previously agreed to by democratic leaders and signed by this president, and most importantly, this is the only proposal out there that keeps the government open, the only one that's coming over from the house. in other wor

that bill has a hearing next month, and we will have to react quickly to that bill. we are prepared to do so once the amendment is made. chairperson campos: if i may, in terms of our involvement, may be on the resolution, what else can we do in terms of our advocacy? >> we have been active at the coalition that has been working on this. miss miller and myself have been reaching out to some of the same people on the government side that we reached out to when prop. 16 was coming about, to make sure they are aware that 790 is out there. we're working in course with the broader goal to give the bill as much support as we can. chairperson campos: ms. miller? >> i was going to add that we're going to send them a model resolution. this helps move things along, and model resolution and a staff report to present to their government entities. chairperson campos: commissioner mirkarimi? vice-chairperson mirkarimi: has the california puc ever taken legislative considerations like this themselves? >> yes, the cpuc is allowed to take positions on legislation before them, just lik

bill made the difference. it's government stepping in when it was needed and put 45,000 people across this world to work. and that's what government's about. it's there to be helpful. this isn't just an accounting office. it's not just a fiscal policy problem. because of my success in business, i never had to worry again about whether or not i could provide health care for my family. i never forgot what it was like to be without health care. and we need the health reform law because no american should ever have to make sacrifices to afford health care. americans are beginning to experience the benefits of this law enforcement why now -- benefits of this law. why now would we want to put our progress on hold? i agree. we have serious economic problems in our country, but we're not going to solve them by taking health care away from american women and families. don't take away this critical assistance for people who can't afford the care they need. if we have fiscal problems, if we have deficit problems, there a

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1473, a bill making appropriations for the department of defense and other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 218, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, each will control 30 minutes. the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

the other bill is an illegal bill. the other bill would make our founders roll over in their graves. this is what the bill they embedded no bug, no pay in -- no budget, no pay in. follow me. and i especially hope the young people listening to this debate will follow me, because you've learned how a bill becomes a law. it goes through a committee usually -- doesn't have to -- it goes to one house. they pass it. the other house passes it, so you get the house and the sena senate. and then it goes to the president. he either signs it or vetoes it. if he signs it, it's law. if it's vetoed, two-thirds can override him. guess what? they put no budget, no pay into a bill that says the following. if the senate has not acted by a date certain on h.r. 1 -- this horrible bill that i just talked to you about -- that bill will have been deemed to be the law. now it's a new deal. we deem. so in other words, i have 20 bills that i've introduced. today i deem them law. i have some great bills. one is a violence against children act, v

i asked that the bill be agreed to and the senate agrees to vote on the passage of the bill. >> is there objection? >> mr. president, the republican leader. outstanding work during this difficult negotiation. you know, mr. president, we had an opportunity tonight to decide whether we wanted to repeat history or make history. had we chosen to repeat history, we would have are allowed a government shutdown. instead we decided to make history by implementing in the middle of this fiscal year as the majority leader's indicated substantial reductions in spending. now, these reductions, mr. president, are in the billions. once we get through this process by the end of this week, we will move on to a much larger discussion about how we saved trillions. by enacting hopeful on a bipartisan basis a budget that genuinely begins to get on top of this problem, and the problem, as we all know, is $14 trillion in debt and over $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities. the president's asked us to raise the debt ceiling and senate republicans and house republicans, and i hope many democrats as well, are goin

portion of this bill. i understand from an exchange between my staff and the staff of the senate appropriation committees that the committee is appropriating only -- quote -- "top-line dollar amounts in this bill" and not providing the customary tables, which is the description, for each account which outlines the spefbs of what is being -- specifics of what is being funded. instead, i have learned the committee plans to communicate directly with the office of the secretary of defense on funding levels and specific items. i don't have a problem with the appropriations committee providing a top-line dollar amount to the pentagon and allowing the secretary of defense to fund our national security priorities as he sees fit. i am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency associated with this plan. and i hope it's not a way to get around the earmark moratorium currently in place in both houses. if a member of congress is dictating through the appropriations committee the use of scarce defense funds, it's

bills. i did not go that far. if you think about republicans from a policy standpoint, the only policy leverage. that they have -- that will not get it to the senate and get it signed by the president. you have identified the most emotive issues. but whether it is health care, financial services reform, higher education reform, epa regulation, things that they're really care about, serious policy issues, their own money ability to impact that is to put a dent rider or amendment on a must-pass spending bill. at the end of the day, they can probably get some of what they want. i do not go so far as to said that the republicans should can see to the democrats that we will only pass clean spending bills. but to allow big symbolic issues to drown out this message that some people mentioned earlier, we have not made our case for our own success. we have cut spending for the first time maybe ever. but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the big budget, but it is the first time we have done it. a

yesterday senators john mccain and john kerry introduced a bill establishing an internet privacy bill of rights something that consumers and civil liberties organizations have been waiting for for a long time now this measure would create rules that would force internet companies to explain to users how they collect their data who's going to be able to view it and how they intend to keep it safe so for those companies wanting to get their hands on your info think of your name their e-mail address maybe even your credit card numbers they won't be able to do that without your individual consent and web companies would also have to offer users the ability to opt out of data collection and all tech giants find even a microsoft intel and h.p. are all signed on privacy groups are saying that this bill isn't going far enough so let's figure out what the pros and cons are here are the scots are with me is the technology reporter for the hill and thanks so much for being here tonight now you know like i said this is something that i think has been a long time coming a lot of groups have been w

the bill states that the 2011 spending bill h.r.-one would become a lot of the senate does not pass the 2011 spending bill by next wednesday. hr-1 fell to pass the senate in march. the senate is not expected to act on today's house bill. here is the house floor debate on that. it is about nine minutes. mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as we debate the future course of government spending, we need to be honest with the people of this country about the current fiscal state of affairs. america averages now trillion-dollar deficits. we borrow nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. given the fiscal clout that hangs over our country, it is reckless to assume we can live pain-free forever. sooner or later something has to give. to give families and business confidence that their future won't be plagued by inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates, our majority vowed to move forcefully to cut spending. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: we mad

ultimately, the bill passed out. that committee had been -- they had a number of members that resided entirely within santa clara county. going in, we have a feel for how that might turn out. the recommendation to the management here, and the city and county representatives, is that as this bill continues through the assembly and goes through appropriations, we need to jump ahead and start working the senate transportation committee, so they do not wait for that activity. that committee is not welcoming for northern california and has very few representatives, but does have knowledgeable chairman.

not one jobs bill. in fact, the only bill that they have put on that has anything to do with jobs is one that destroys 700,000 jobs. so keep this in mind, american public. 14 weeks of g.o.p. leadership in the house and not one piece of legislation that would create a job, putting americans to work this year and next year. . that's a fact. now, another fact. where did the deficit come from? where did the deficit come from? in order to understand where wer we need to know where we've been. beginning wp ronald reagan, the budget was not balanced. ronald reagan at the end of his term, left for the american public, $1.4 trillion deficit in the years ahead. at the end of each year and therefore at the end of a president's term, the congressional budget office makes an estimate of what is going to happen over the next five to 10 years. and at the end of ronald reagan's term they said there would be a $1.4 trillion deficit going forward. george walker bush followed reagan and at the end of his administration, t

the very first bill they passed was a bill to defund the health care bill, which gave so many services to women and eliminated discrimination on the basis of gender. we think that is wrong, and we will fight to make sure that that does not happen. the second thing they did, they passed a bill that said you cannot buy an insurance policy and get a tax credit as if you offer for reproductive services. we are not going to let that happen, either. you might have heard as well as a few other far-right social issues that the thing that is holding up the budget negotiations right now is their desire to deny women in the district of columbia the right to full reproductive services. we are not gone to let that happen, either. make no mistake about it. there is a systematic assault on women's health care. health care. prevention, birth control, full reproductive rights, and it is happening right now, right down the hill, and there's only one way to stop it, because we do not have a pro-troops majority in the u.s. house of representatives. in thet-troy's majority house of representatives. -- pro-

it's a tough bill to swallow. and the last time i saw the ratings on the tea partiers in this country, they're going down in the polls. we're seeing a shift. cutting anything right now is exactly the wrong thing to do. and the democrats are letting the tea party call the shots in my opinion. take a good look at today's tea party rally. president obama, senate democrats, and john boehner. they are letting this small group of radical people set a policy for america. a handful of fox news loving americans have got more power than what? than 100,000 people who are fighting for their rights in madison, wisconsin? the president of course arguably never went to bat for these middle class folks because it would have politicized the whole thing and i said in previous commentaries i'm sick of that garbage. it is about politics. and right now they're out politicking us. that's how i feel as a liberal. look, senate democrats have to realize one thing. you can't pin this on president obama. you guys got elected, too. you have

woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess what must be happening here is we are wasting our time on unconstitutional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hastings: we are wasting our time on pate antley unconstitutional measures. i won't go into all of the details about the need to address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people. but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

the underlying bill which mr. woodall is a co-sponsor says -- implies that the senate has passed a bill which already failed there, it assumes or deems the president has signed the bill, which he threatened to veto. april fool's america, there is no senate or office of presidency today under the republican majority bill. the republican spending bill badly damages our fragile economic recovery according to 300 economists of all political stripes and threatens to send us spiraling into another republican recession. and as we have heard early this week, the republican answer to 14 million americans who lost their jobs and can't find new ones is, stop talking about jobs. so at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman, mr. woodall, for 15 seconds, to ask him just a simple question. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd be happy to answer that question. mr. ellison: i would like to ask the gentleman, how many jobs does this bill create? mr. woodall: by eliminating the crushing federal deficit that we

those issues should be done on the bills, the substantive bills that come forward. so you sort of get a little suspicious here as these issues are being raised as to whether, in fact, those who were negotiating on the republican side are sincere in trying to reach an agreement to prevent a government shutdown or whether they continue -- continually change the goalposts and the rules in order to bring about a government shutdown. now, i must tell you i was really disappointed as i heard republican after republican in the last couple weeks talk about, well, you know, a shutdown might be good for the country. so, you know, we have a shutdown, so be it. let's do it. even some republicans calling for a shutdown. i understand there's a problem that the speaker of the house has in dealing with the members of the republican caucus who belong to the tea party and they're insisting that he don't -- he doesn't want to see any compromise. i understand that, but those members don't control the process. we have a majority of the members of the house, the majority of the members o

obviously, i like the defense portion of this bill. has been put together on a bipartisan basis, said this is a real defense bill. i like the defense part of it, but it is going to all depend on the riders and the sensitive programs, things like the veterans' programs and head start and some of these things that i think deal with the social safety net of this country. if we can work out some of those things, get the numbers down, i think there will be people in our caucus who can vote for this. but there has to be a good package put together, and that may be a problem for the speaker. the speaker -- when you are the leader, you have to put together the 218 votes every single day. this could be a challenge. i hope that this could look reasonable. i do not want to see the government shut down. i have not made up my mind because i want to see in what happens on this very sensitive domestic programs before i decide. and the riders will affect -- some of those riders like planned parenthood would be a big problem for me. >> are you concerne

in other words, this bill contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week to week bill did. it also takes all cuts from only a small slice of the budget. frankly, madam speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility. especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the secretary of defense himself has called the pentagon's culture of endless money. this partisan patch contradicts republicans' own promises to put everything on the table. defense spending included. listen to their own words as reported by the associated press on january 23, quote, the house's new majority leader, representative carke cantor of virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board. but of course they haven't done that. "new york times" january 27 representative chris gibson, a tea party endorsed freshman republican and retired army colonel said, made it clear, that no part of the pentagon's $550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in iraq and afghanistan was immune. he said this, this deficit that we hav

of rights is already in the bill of rights so say to look at that fourth amendment the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place is the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seize so this is supposed to protect us from government not private entities that we deal with voluntarily supporters of this bill might say that we need the government to protect us from corporations but what we really need and what our founders knew even before the internet is protection from government senators mccain and kerry couldn't care less about your personal privacy as they do nothing with this bill to address the real threats to privacy that come from our government but it gets worse just today democrat senator dick durbin from illinois an ounce of legislation he'll be announcing after tax that it would impose a sales tax on internet purchases his justification why sh

health care bill. we heard from the democratic women senators on their oppositions to the measures. this is 45 minutes. >> i want to talk about is consequences of what they are talking about. the right wing is trying to change the conversation from how do we create jobs in the country, how do we reduce deficit and debt into socially provocative wires that literally wage war against women. now, the extreme wing campaigned against the health care. they said they were going to repeal and replace. all they want to do is repeal. they have no idea for replacing. well let's talk about what they want to appeal. let's talk about the war they are waging against women. if you repeal or repair health care it will have draconian impacts on men and realm, make no mistake about it. in the bill, we ended gender discrimination in health insurance. no longer could insurance companies charge 40% more for men for the same coverage for the equal age in health status. the other thing we ended is denying women health care on

so bill by bill they discuss what they have to pay. they discuss things like the power bill and the rent and the mortgage, the car loan, the credit card payments, mom and dad cut out the things they can do without. maybe it's the golf membership for dad. maybe it's the weekly pedicure for mom. whatever it is they know they have to make tough and real decisions. it's time to stop the spending insanity here in washington, d.c. america, your nation is broke. we cannot continue to borrow 42 cents of every dollar we spend. can he cannot continue to spend $1 trillion more each year than we're bringing in, and we definitely cannot do that year after year racking up over $14 trillion in debt that our children must one day pay. and your congress is struggling with cutting a putry $61 billion and the american kitchen, dad looks at mom at this point and he says, hundredy, something's got to change. -- honey, something's got to change. your house of representatives, folks, they passed a spending plan. the senate has failed to act. they've come acr

90 days, that bill does not go into effect. instead it gets placed on the ballot in november, where ohio voters get to decide whether they really do want to strip union rights or whether they do not. this is a fight that ohio democrats have been gearing up for weeks, gearing up for for weeks. it is a fight that ohio democrats seem pretty darn confident that they will win. joining us now is democratic minority leader from the ohio house of representatives, armand budish. thank you for being here. >> it's my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> it seems from a national perspective that democrats and the democratic base are getting really fired up by what republican legislators and governors are doing in the states. what can you describe to this national audience about the mood in ohio right now? >> the mood is angry. the mood is somewhat fearful but very angry because people in ohio are understanding what's happening. senate bill 5 decimates, decimates collective bargaining. and i don't really get it. collective bargaining. that's

bill cites this, to his credit. so there are many, many criticisms to be made from the left and "the new york times." what doesn't all add up to? bill keller would say i guess that now without justification, that if we attack like this on both sides, maybe that tells us that if we are facing off both sides made we're doing something right. i'll conclude by saying that i still think on balance, whatever's its heirs, it's an excellent, excellent newspaper. as everybody in this room quit reading the times on principle? okay. we've got -- let the record show that out of the people here with about about eight hands. well, that's something, but by and large i don't think anybody would reading the times after jayson blair. i think anybody quit reading the times, or very few people quit reading the times after very many of these things. it's still a great paper. if you're trying to keep up with what's going on in cairo and not reading the times, you're missing something. their coverage is great. yes, it is excellent but it

this may not be the most perfect defense bill we've ever produced here, but iis a good bill. it will keep the defense department functioning. here's the problem that for those of us that work every day of our lives in national defense, we see what's happening. under a continuing resolution, the defense department is getting terribly close, dangerously close to affecting readiness, troops and their families. this is not something we can allow to continue. put away the politics. understand the importance of taking care of our soldiers and our sailors and airmen and marines. and their friends. don't make them go without a paycheck. because most of them move from paycheck -- live from paycheck to paycheck. that's not right but that's the way it is. let's pass this bill. put politics aside. let's move the department of defense away from a continuing resolution that's having a very, very negative effect on our readyness and training. i want to compliment senator rogers for the good job he's done to gets to this point today. let's pass this bill and let's get on to the business of t