Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the American people love a fair fight, and so do I. In the debate over America's future, we especially want to hear all the facts and all the arguments on every side of the issue.

Unfortunately, some in our Nation's Capitol want to achieve that result by bringing back what is known as the Fairness Doctrine, an archaic government regulation imposed by the Federal Communication Commission that for decades required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner.

Now, it sounds acceptable enough. But there is really nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine, Mr. Speaker. This is a relic of America's broadcasting past, and it should stay in the past where it belongs.

Fortunately, 2 weeks ago, 309 Republicans and Democrats in the Congress voted in favor of the Pence amendment to prevent the FCC for 1 year from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine.

While I was pleased with the bipartisan passage of this legislation, today we will open a second front to ensure that the Fairness Doctrine can never come back again. In cooperation with colleagues in the House and the Senate today, we will unveil the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which will ensure that the FCC and any future administration cannot re- regulate the airwaves of America without an act of Congress.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, join me in cosponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act and preserve the free airwaves of America.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today, along with my partners in this amendment, Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, very much in a spirit of bipartisanship. We come to the floor in this moment, on this amendment, to be about that, which I think we are all about.

The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press is not a partisan issue in this Congress. We all live under and cherish that first amendment that says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

I, myself, Mr. Chairman, have worked in a bipartisan way in this Congress to fashion legislation that ensures a free and independent press. The amendment before this body today is simply an extension of that mission.

Our legislation would simply say that none of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine, as repealed in 1985.

Now, the Fairness Doctrine actually came to pass in 1949, part of a regulation of a much older law. It required broadcasters to prevent controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. That sounds reasonable enough. But because of the lack of clarity in the regulation, in the commission's rulings, broadcasters, during almost four decades, often opted not to offer any controversial programming whatsoever.

The FCC concluded that, in fact, by 1985, this regulation was having a chilling effect on the public debate and repealed it effective 1987. Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio particularly has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and, I offer, an asset to the Nation.

Our amendment, simply put, is an effort to maintain the status quo, to prevent this administration and this Federal Communications Commission, in this fiscal year about which we are debating, to use no funds to return the Fairness Doctrine.

Now, I want to acknowledge the fact that there are some who are skeptical about the need for this amendment. I have heard distinguished and respected Members of this body come to this floor and say that this is, quote, an issue which does not exist, and have seen writing, and I expect we will hear rhetoric to that effect, and I will respect the words of each person that utters that view, but I will differ.

Just for example, in the last 2 days, the Senate majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Richard Durbin, said, ``It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.'' That was yesterday. In the last several days, the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said she was looking at reviving the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrat nominee for the President of the United States in 2004, the distinguished Senator John Kerry, said, ``I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there,'' and he went on to say, ``I also think the equal time doctrine ought to come back.'' Most recently, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, published an entire report on what it called the ``structural imbalance of political talk radio.''

So you will forgive me if many of us sense there is afoot in the Nation's Capital a bit of a cool breeze on the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression on the airwaves. So we seize this opportunity in the appropriations process, with my partners, Jeff Flake and Jeb Hensarling, and hopefully a bipartisan majority in this Congress, to say yes to freedom and to reject, in this fiscal year, the power that we have in the spending bill, any funds to be spent to bring back this unfairness doctrine to American broadcasting law.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first let me acknowledge my gratitude that the chairman of this subcommittee will accept this amendment and has endorsed it on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my partner in this amendment, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I think the gentleman from Ohio knows how much I respect his liberal passion and often feel it mirrors my conservative passion, but let me emphasize and agree with his final point.

It is precisely about the next administration that many here in this Chamber and many here in America are concerned with leaving in the Federal Communications Commission the resources or the authority to reregulate the public airwaves.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my partner in this amendment, the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Jeb Hensarling.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, and to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, I appreciate both the tone and the good natured aspects of his remarks. But I say very seriously when he asked the question rhetorically, he says you act as though there's something you would stand to lose.

Our view is, despite the gentleman's assurances that I completely accept as sincere, what we stand to lose is freedom. We have some of the most prominent and powerful Members of this Congress stepping forward and calling for the regulation of free speech on the air waves of America using this archaic doctrine dubbed as the fairness doctrine.

And today, with the support of the majority, we will send a deafening message that not on our watch will that occur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a former broadcaster, distinguished member of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden of Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader of the United States House of Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

With gratitude to the Republican leader for his eloquent remarks, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished and eloquent gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a force of nature on the House floor, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Tom Price.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his support of this amendment. And I also wish to thank the gentleman from New York for accepting this amendment.

I believe what we will do in this legislation will demonstrate a bipartisan commitment to freedom on the airwaves at a time that intemperate remarks are being made by others in Washington, D.C., both within the Capitol Building and within the punditocracy that surrounds this Capitol Building.

This Congress in bipartisan numbers, and I trust the numbers will be large, will say ``yes'' to freedom on the airwaves, ``yes'' to the freedom of expression, and ``yes'' to the freedom of the press.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the ``unfairness doctrine'' and vote ``aye'' on the Pence amendment on behalf of my colleagues Jeff Flake and Jeb Hensarling.

There is no question that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is a tough act to follow, but I appreciate his decorum, his demeanor and always his candor on this floor.

But let me reassure him and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the bipartisan vote that I expect will be recorded today will be an encouragement to people on the right, to people on the left, and people in the center, people in front of microphones and people listening to those people on microphones because this House will say what some in the other body are not saying, and that is, we believe in freedom on the airwaves. We reject the archaic doctrines of the past that would have this Federal Government manage political speech on the public airwaves.

It is time that we come together as a Nation, we move past the archaic rules of broadcasting fashioned for a Depression-era America, and we embrace the dynamic national conversation that is the American media today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Beginning in 1949, the Federal Communications Commission enforced the so-called fairness doctrine that required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner.

It sounds reasonable enough, but there is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. Thankfully, the FCC overturned its own ruling in 1985. Since the demise of the fairness doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the Nation.

Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk recent days about bringing back the fairness doctrine. Liberal think tanks and elected officials in both political parties in Congress are contemplating it. Bringing back the fairness doctrine would amount to nothing more than government control over political views expressed on public airwaves, and it must not be allowed to occur.

This week I will be introducing the Broadcaster Freedom Act that will prevent the FCC or any future president from reinstating the fairness doctrine. President Kennedy said, ``A nation judge that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a Nation that's afraid of its people.''

I urge my colleagues to join me as original cosponsors of the Broadcaster Freedom Act and support every effort on the floor this week to leave this unfair fairness doctrine on the ash heap of broadcast history.

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 47: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) add the following:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment, although I do want to express my appreciation to Chairman Lowey for preserving, as she indicated, the 15 different restrictions that are in this bill on the use of American taxpayer dollars overseas to directly fund abortion.

But I want to say respectfully to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, come on. Legislation that disallows contributions to fund abortions in family-planning organizations around the globe ought to also disallow in-kind contributions to those same organizations.

Money is fungible. We know that. Organizations that receive commodities can take the resources that they would have used to purchase those commodities and use it to promote abortion. We all know. We are adults in this room. We all know that we are seeing here a concerted, sincere, and I would like to say respectfully creative legislative effort to undermine a policy known as the Mexico City policy that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know is broadly supported by the American people.

Whatever the view is on abortion in this country, the American people don't want to see their taxpayer dollars used to fund abortions at home or abroad. They don't want to see their taxpayer dollars used through the foreign aid program to fund organizations that promote abortion as a means of family planning. And the possibility of making tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars available to organizations that promote abortion around the globe, making it available in the form of commodities is still making resources available to organizations that promote abortion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Stupak-Smith amendment. This amendment very simply ensures that our taxpayer Foreign Operation funds will not be used to support abortion overseas. The Mexico City Policy, which was first instituted in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, simply states that any U.S. funding for family planning cannot be used to promote abortions as a suitable option in family planning.

As divisive as this issue is among many Americans, this issue is a consensus issue. The American people know whatever your view of abortion, whether it is morally right or morally acceptable, most Americans agree that it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who cherish the sanctity of human life and use it to fund and to underwrite organizations that promote abortion overseas.

It is precisely for that reason that I rise today in strong support of this thoughtful amendment and urge my colleagues to preserve the Mexico City Policy and vote ``aye'' on the Stupak-Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for bringing this creative amendment to the floor.

While I address the Chair, let me also acknowledge there may be others looking in. I want to be very clear on the point that what we are asking here is for this foreign operations budget to get by on only a 9 percent increase instead of a 9.5 percent increase.

Back in Indiana, we just call this a haircut. But it is a haircut, as the gentlelady from Colorado said, that is a reduction of the increase.

As I listened to the distinguished majority leader, who I enjoy and admire more than anyone else in this Chamber, he said if the shoe fits, wear it.

I understand the frustration of looking across the aisle and seeing many of my colleagues in my party who voted for an awful lot of government programs over the last 6 years complaining about government spending, but then there is another saying that says if it does not fit, you must acquit.

I would offer that for many of us asking for this very small haircut tonight, it does not fit us. We fought these budget increases. We fought the creation of new entitlements. Now we are coming before this majority in a spirit of collegiality and asking might we not do with $171 million less. Might we not do with just, instead of a 9.5 percent increase, how about a 9 percent increase.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today includes in various ways tens of millions of dollars that would be directed to advancing U.S. interests in areas known as the West Bank and Gaza.

Given the recent violent and tragic events in the Palestinian territories and the strong commitment of this body to prevent taxpayer funding from reaching the hands of terrorists, I offer an amendment that reinforces previous prohibitions on funding Palestinian terrorist organizations and offer it for my colleagues' consideration on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, except as otherwise provided by existing law.''

So what is existing law? The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act last year, in 2006. It was signed into law in December. It states that, ``No ministry, agency or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority effectively controlled by Hamas'' would be eligible for funding unless it meets the basic preconditions of civil society, namely, recognition of Israel and the renunciation of violence.

The purpose of this amendment today is to clarify that assistance may be provided to the Fattah elements of the PA government, assuming such elements are not engaged in the terrorism or compromise by the terrorism of Hamas. Concern about the application of this provision may have led the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mrs. Lowey, to put a hold and request information from Secretary Rice about her intent to release funding to the PA.

Now, these safeguards and other relevant laws are critical because they prohibit assistance to terrorists, including to a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority, but they permit assistance to a PA government that is in

compliance with the principles of recognition of Israel, previous peace agreements, and a renunciation of violence.

Why is it necessary? Well, because, given the systematic instability, we simply don't know what shape the Palestinian government will take in the coming months. Large portions of the Palestinian territories are in virtual anarchy at this moment. Even worse, Gaza is completely dominated by Hamas, a universally recognized terrorist organization. We cannot permit one red cent of U.S. dollars to find its way to Hamas.

After lengthy discussions with the Department of State, including Secretary of State Rice herself, I would like my colleagues to know that this amendment is not opposed by the State Department. In fact, I had a warm and candid conversation today with the Secretary of State, and I told her then that it is critical that we clarify that the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 is still the law of the land and reiterate its intent, namely, to deny funding to terrorist entities within the Palestinian leadership.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot permit any ambiguity to exist on this subject. This body should be on the record today, as we have before, that no American tax dollars can be delivered to any authority within the Palestinian territories that is compromised or even tainted by Hamas or other terrorist interests.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for her support of this amendment. Let me also say to the gentlewoman that I intend to support the underlying legislation and appreciate her strong work in support of Israel.

The reason for bringing this bill, to answer the gentlelady's question, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. In recent days, the State Department has indicated its intent to ``lift restrictions on aid to Palestinians.'' And the Pence amendment today will simply say that any aid that would go to the Palestinian Authority must, with an exclamation point, only go to the Palestinian Authority under current restrictions in current law. That is my sincere intent.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 63: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 64: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 49: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 50: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Indiana's native sons who served his country honorably in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was deeply saddened to learn that Staff Sergeant Michael Bechert of New Castle had succumbed to wounds he suffered in Baghdad last month when his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device.

Staff Sergeant Bechert served in the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Division, 1st Infantry Division since 2001. He received numerous meritorious citations during 2 enlistments and 6 years in the Army, all stationed in Germany where he lived with his wife and young son. He was serving his second tour in Iraq.

The infantry is the oldest of the combat arms. From the dawn of time, wars have been predominantly fought by men on foot. Staff Sergeant Bechert continued that proud tradition as an expert soldier who had mastered the skills of an infantryman and served bravely in combat.

Staff Sergeant Bechert was the recipient of the Expert Infantryman Badge and Combat Infantryman Badge, highly regarded decorations in the U.S. Army that certify his elite skills and service to his country in combat. His other medals include an Army Commendation Medal for heroism and a Purple Heart for a previous injury. He will be awarded posthumously with a Bronze Star and a second Purple Heart because he died in the line of duty.

We all owe a debt that can never be repaid to Staff Sergeant Bechert's family and friends for the tragic loss of husband, father, son, friend, citizen, soldier and hero.

Madam Speaker, I wish to express my profound sadness to the community at the loss of this talented young Hoosier who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve and protect these United States. Let us remember Staff Sergeant Bechert, his family and friends in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding and for her extraordinary leadership on that area of the world about which I have some responsibilities as the ranking Republican on the Middle East Subcommittee.

And like the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), I too wish to congratulate the principal author of H. Con. Res. 21. There is no greater or more eloquent advocate for that precious relationship between the free peoples of the United States of America and Israel than Congressman Steve Rothman of New Jersey. And I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this measure and would echo the gentlelady's remarks about the force and eloquence of his presentation. And I will not seek to emulate that today, nor compete with it.

But I will take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the importance of this resolution and the facts and the wisdom underpinning the need for Congress to be heard on the issue of calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the U.N. charter because of his calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

The United Nations, in a very real sense, was formed when history failed. History and the international institutions on the planet failed to prevent barbaric action by fascist Nazi and Axis powers against the free world. And in every sense, genocide, the genocide that we saw perpetrated by the Germans against indigenous Jewish people and other ethnic populations, the genocide perpetrated by certain Japanese forces on mainland China, was part and parcel of the reason for the formation of the United Nations. And therefore the United Nations charter and the aforementioned Treaty on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are all tied up one with another.

And so for this Congress, as the legislature of that nation which sits on the Security Council, to call on the United Nations to live up to its historic commitment to prevent and confront genocide is, as we say in Indiana, not a stretch. This is at the very essence of what the United Nations was created to do, and the need for action by the United Nations Security Council when one considers the facts in this case truly speak for themselves. And let me lay those facts out.

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as the Genocide Convention, defines genocide as, among other things, ``the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy in whole or in part the targeted group.''

Now, let's see if some of the statements by the leadership of the nation of Iran against the people of Israel qualify as calling upon the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy in whole or in part that group.

Also, the Genocide Convention bans the conspiracy or incitement to commit genocide and states that violators shall be punished ``whether constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.''

133 member states of the U.N. have ratified the Genocide Convention, including Iran.

Article II, section 4 of the U.N. charter, also to which Iran has agreed, requires all member states of the United Nations ``to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.''

Now, let's get to the facts because that's what the U.N. requires, that's what the treaty requires, that's what the Genocide Convention requires, that's what the U.N. charter requires.

Well, let's start with October 26, 2005. Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' and described Israel as a ``disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world,'' and declared that ``anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''

12 December 2006, that same leader, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressed a Holocaust Denial Conference in Tehran and said that Israel would ``soon be wiped out.''

15 December 2000, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i stated that ``Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon'' referring to Israel as the ugly phenomenon. He went on to say, ``We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.''

Iran, as we know, has aggressively pursued a clandestine effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Iran funds, trains and supports terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which have murdered Americans, Israelis and non-Israeli Jews, and seeks to destroy Israel.

14 December 2001, the President of Iran's Expediency Council and former leader of Iran, Ali Rafsanjani, threatened Israel with nuclear destruction saying, and I quote, ``if one day the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel now possesses, then the imperialist strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, while it will merely harm the Islamic world.''

Men and women, these are comments made by the leaders of a sovereign nation that is in a headlong pursuit to obtain nuclear weapons, and has, by international consensus, already obtained missile technology that could deliver such weapons within the theater of the Middle East.

History teaches no truth more clearly than this: nations should take tyrants at their word. For the United States of America to fail to call on the institution of the United Nations to take the tyrants in Iran at their word would be a grievous historical error and one for which future generations of Americans like those injured soldiers that I toured through the Capitol earlier this afternoon will likely have to pay.

This resolution, authored by Mr. Rothman from New Jersey and Mr. Kirk from Illinois, strongly condemns Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's offensive remarks, contemptible statements, and reprehensible policies directed at the destruction of Israel; calls on the United Nation's Security Council to take up charges against Ahmadinejad for violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and article II, section 4 of the United Nations charter.

It also calls on the Security Council and all member states of the United Nations to consider stronger measures to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which would both be in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties and give them the potential to eliminate Israel.

And it reaffirms, of course, the unwavering strategic partnership and close friendship between the United States and Israel, and reasserts the steadfast commitment of the United States to defend the right of Israel to exist as a free and democratic and Jewish state.

The time for this resolution has come. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for his bold leadership, and I pledge my strong support and urge all of my colleagues to make this strong and deafening statement that this Congress and this Nation will take tyrants at their word, and we will call on the United Nations today to live up to their charter.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to commend the minority leader and the majority leader and the chairman of the committee for an arduous task of coming together across what is an increasingly very wide gulf between the two sides of this aisle and appreciate the difficulty of doing that?

If I may, Madam Speaker, ask the majority leader a question just for clarification purposes and colloquy.

Mr. Leader, on the point of order protection, I was directly involved with a handful of our own when we worked through our side changing the rules in the spring of 2005 for that point of order protection. It is, in effect, a stopgap at the point of consideration of the conference report. An essential element of that is that the point of order is debatable, and I wanted to get your assurance that as we move toward adopting that rule change that that point of order would be debatable. I believe it was for at least 10 minutes per

side. Without the opportunity to debate, there was no capacity for Members or the public to know what projects are objectionable, and that might prevent going forward in consideration.

And I would welcome and yield time for your response.

I thank the distinguished majority leader for that very direct and clear reply. The minority leader nodded his assent. There's very little value in point of order protection if Members do not have the ability to point to those aspects of the legislation that are objectionable.

But I will also, and I'm prepared to yield time to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for a question, I would also say that point of order protection obviously calls for a vote on whether to proceed with consideration for the entire conference report. It would not, and Members should be alerted, it would not be a specific vote on a specific objectionable project; and, therefore, the likelihood that a point of order would be successful, given the fact that appropriations bills generally have many fathers and mothers in this institution, is fairly remote.

So I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee that it certainly is not a substitute for the opportunity in the regular process here on the floor to challenge specific elements of bills, whether they be earmarks or other policy-related additions and programs. And so it's to that point and to this longer-term understanding that I wanted to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for some further clarification. And, again, I want to reiterate my respect for the chairman, for the leader and my special respect and gratitude for the minority leader for their efforts in this regard.

But with regard to your expectation, I think you just used the phrase that the amount of time that would be subject to a negotiation for a unanimous consent on each bill going forward would be a good-faith negotiation, and it would be based on, in your words roughly, the same amount of time that had been attributable to those specific appropriations bills in the past.

I think the chairman made reference to 108 hours earlier in the last session of the last year of the Congress. I would note that we did not consider, to my recollection, a Labor-HHS bill during that period of time. I just wanted to give the chairman a respectful opportunity to express what your expectation of that may be because for many of us the opportunity to come to the floor and challenge individual provisions of bills and also make amendments for additions to bills is critical, and I would yield.

Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the minority leader for a response on this, if he would like.

Reclaiming my time, and before I withdraw my objection, let me say I appreciate that clarification from the minority leader and from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I assume good faith by both the distinguished gentlemen, and I will say I certainly reserve the right to object to future unanimous-consent agreements, but I look forward to supporting the unanimous-consent agreement today.

And I withdraw my reservation.

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Sec. 409. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made

available by this Act may be used for construction of a

structure or purchase of equipment for the purpose of

performing abortions.

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Sec. 409. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made

available by this Act may be used for construction of a

structure or purchase of equipment for the purpose of

performing abortions.