this is not to attack you personally. This is not about anybody's personality. This is about performance.

it's a matter, Mr. Kucinich, of protecting people from harm, and in this case I think we're protecting the administration more than we are the American public.

we are going to close down the community. That could not be farther from the truth.

this cannot go up to the highest bidder. There is not going to be the Hyatt Hotel.

And I know we debate this all the time. But you could structure the language of this grant that would eliminate the conscience clause.

I have to tell you, just coming from a private background, I look at this and I say, you know what? We got gamed on this.

The purpose of these hearings really, I cannot tell you, the way I look at it, to me there is such a bias.

it is very disappointing for me, not just as a Member of Congress, as a citizen of the United States, to look and say, so you know what? They didn't do what you wanted them to do, so we structured language to keep them out of the hall.

And I think this is where the question comes in: Why? Why now? Why do we go away from the way we used to look at things?

I am seeing that there is language that I am wondering about, regarding the development of the language giving preference to applicants that provide all reproductive services.

A vast moat to protect us as long as we hold it . . . [a] protective shield for all of the Americas and all of the free lands of the Pacific Ocean area, a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Marianas held by us…