millions, not billions. there are carrots and sticks in preferment. the vendor should be held accountable. -- in procurement. defining a goal and setting a specification that stays static and then when the vendor comes in over, they bear the responsibility, unless it is our responsibility. this is a needed plane. we need to get them as quickly as we can. i am supportive of these planes. when this country is going broke, we are $12.4 trillion in debt. this is not sustainable. . .

we all have the aspiration to do better than the production if we possibly can. that will be a matter of discipline. it will be a matter of negotiation. and performance. i agree with you, the picture

that we painted at the beginning of the testimony today is unacceptable. we are paying more -- we are asking you to pay more than we said you would have to pay. that is unacceptable. we need to wrestle this back into some sort of realistic box. the best i can offer and what we are trying to offer is realism, not optimism, but realism. >> learning lessons of this determined, will be change the way we do procurement in the defense department? >> i think we have to and we are making a number of changes that were written into law. there is the requisition reform act of last year that prescribed a number of changes to improve the acquisition system and all

of those are in process. some of them are in my office. some of them are in ms. fox's office . what you say two -- what to see today is a reflection of what was written into legislation that came out of this committee last year, namely that we should start doing independent cross- estimates and taking seriously. that is what we are trying to do in the strike fighter program. >> is there something you have not yet implemented that you need to implement when we get to the next procurement? i am sure that you ever want to hear about a program in the future about a program that is over budget or not on time. do you have all the mechanisms in place to know that that will not happen again? >> i think the bureaucratic

structure is there to do better but all the boxes don't matter, to have two other things. one is the discipline to surface problems and solve them in a candid manner. we are trying to do that on this program, maybe belatedly. the other thing is good people. çthat is something we are still working on that will take years to rebuild the acquisition cadre in the departments of they have all the engineering skills and a system engineering skill and all the things that it takes to replicate what you rightly suggest in the private sector. >> do we need to pay these folks

more? would we be more efficient to put together a squad of the best and brightest people in the world working for us? if it cost us millions of dollars and we save billions, it would be good for the taxpayer. when you say rebuild, do we not have the talent we need? >> we don't. , you are on the civilian side or the uniform side, it is widely recognized. on the civilian side, we reduced the numbers about a decade ago without adequate care to preserving key skills and quality. we are trying to rebuild. something similar happened in the armed services. it is important that a major or kernel that has acquisition expertise and an aspiration to become a general officer can see an opportunity for them to

go up in the acquisition field. we have a lot of experience now with seeing what the market is like for people coming into government acquisition. this is in part because of initiatives that could out of this committee. we are hiring or in-sourcing 20,000 people into the acquisition work force for we cannot pay them what they can get outside. we take too long to hire them. it is a cumbersome system to join the government. what we have going for us is the mission. they come in and they think they are doing something that really matters with national security. that is our hope. we cannot pay them a lot. it is frustrating to work in the government and all the rest of it but the mission is our hook. >> thank you.

as secretary carter said, we led the way to get maitre -- major acquisition reform into bill law last year ended is almost fully implemented now. ms. fox's bureau was created for this reason. these were major changes that took place. you are absolutely right, we were not doing business the way businesses would do it. we are trying through that law and full implementation of that law to change not just the word on the page that will hopefully make a big difference but the culture. that 20,000 figure comes as a startling number to a lot of

people. when we talk about adding 20,000 government employees, that is a very negative effect in the minds of some folks. we know how badly this acquisition cropore was damaged and reduced during the previous decade and we will reverse that. the president is determined to reverse that. we put provisions in the law that will strongly about the rebuilding of that acquisition capability. one of the things that is critically important in terms of keeping costs down is competition. the whole argument on the second engine for that second strike fighter is that we be -- is that will we have competition? i don't have any backbone interests but we believe that

without competition we will see that same kind of upward curve on that pension if it is sole- sourced. we're basically at the mercy of the contractor. once you tell a contractor that we are buying over 2400 planes, ok. now what? where is the leverage? i don't know with the leverage is on this contract. i don't see the leverage. dr. carter, you testified -- one other thing about competition -- we wrote that into our law that we passed last year. the secretary of defense will ensure the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program which includes measures to ensure competition or the option of

competition at both the prime contract level and the sub contract level. that is throughout the life cycle of such a program. to what extent will be do that? -- will we do that? we have done that would ship building or the secretary has deciding that he will sole- source to ships and the problem with that is that where is the competition going to be? if you do not have two shipyards building, we are at their mercy again. that is what my fear is here. we have dr. carter and his testimony and he said that we will ask lockheed to share its of the costs.

where is the leverage? >> we don't have to ask about award fees. that was a specific reference to a an award fee that is at will to the government. that was a polite way of saying that the award fee was being withheld in general, to be very candid for this program, it is in the interest of the performers to have a successful. successful if otherwise, the international customers and the u.s. services will buy fewer jets. the danger of poor performance is that you sell less. in the interest of the performers of the program to sell more jets sooner and therefore to move that ramp that i spoke of earlier and get up that ramkissoon is possible --

get up that ramp as soon as. as the principal reason why performance is the way we seek, we need to set the standards and the performers. >> that has not likely -- that has not historical stopped by in and i'm afraid it continues that way. i worry greatly about where we're going with this program. i am appreciative of the effort you are making now. we might as well know the facts of this program. you have given them to was the best you can. the facts are painful. you have a 90% increase in the projected cost of each plane. we have the 2400 #in constant dollars. that is a painful bit of news

that the taxpayers will not be particularly happy to hear. it is better that we not sugarcoat it, however. it is better we let them know, let the country know, and that is what this hearing is all about, what kind of problems we foresee in an honest way. we think you have done that now. you were attempting to tell us, basically, when you made reference to the earlier planes and affected numbers were reduced, you were not holding up as a role model but you were saying that we had produced planes lost as more than planned, took us longer than planned, but were able to carry up their mission in an effective way. that is why gather you were pointing to, ms. fox.

this $200 million figure for the developmental planes, if you estimate in constant dollars that a plane will cost $95 million and your first planes are costing three times that much, is that about normal for this kind of programs? are your first planes generally that much more than when you get to full production? after you have any way of measuring that? >> we do. i don't have the measurements with me but my short answer would be yes, there are a number -- 2443 aircraft over all but we have reduced the cost so the initial by as much smaller. that is one of the leverage points we actually have on the contractor.

they want to push the ramp up and get the unit cost up and push it out. we are holding them back based on the analysis we have done, the review of the imrt and the desire to keep pressure on this concurrences. y. in my short time in this position, one of the most important things i think about with the legislation -- >> you are referring to the acquisition reform bill? >> yes, sir. the independent system at the beginning of the program will prove in the future to be a very critical thing for us all to look at. based on historical performance, the jsf program is not inconsistent with what has been achieved in the past the independent cost estimate at the beginning would have allowed us to look at that and understand what we were going toward. >> and now that is in place.

i made reference in my opening statement to the independent manufacturing review team that late last summer said that on the jsf program, affordability is no longer embarrassed as a core pillar. that is a totally unacceptable premise for us to proceed. xyou said you would be relentlessly pursuing affordability which means you have rejected that quote? is that correct? were you familiar with that comment? >> absolutely, that review was chartered by my office and what they were reporting was that the program had lost sight of the portability as a key ingredient and i could not agree more. their report and that statement

in the report was important input to was as we restructure the program. >> the independent manufacturing review team identified a series of milestones called production integrated transition plans and i would not like to pronounced that acronym. that plan was intended to get the program back on a reasonable schedule. among the action items were completing program risk- management plan, a business systems modernization plan, a pratt and whitney milestone plan, and the pratt and whitney milestone plan. i think those were be scheduled to be completed. by the end of last month. where are those? >> there are actually 20 action items associated with this. some are process-related, some

are product-related. as far as the risk-management activities, those occurred on schedule. we are tracking over 300 technical risks to include engines and aircraft and that has occurred. >> some reference to those plans, they were filed? >> we understand the risks on the program and are tracking posed as well as 19 actions. >> were those plans completed on schedule? >> yes, sir, there were completed last month. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i appreciate the law that was passed and thank you for providing that information to me. when i talk to people on the vendor side and they talk to me off the record, the view that they have is that the defense department' is that the

contractor's bid low because they know that the cost will creep up. they know there will be a change of borders and that is where they can make up the difference. -- change of borders and that is where they can make up the difference -- a change oforders and that is where they make up the difference was. this goes on for 17 years, -- when this goes on for 17 years, the longer the project goes, the more it seems like there will be cost overruns. i want you to address that moment as to how you keep these project project brought ecstatic if you can without sacrificing safety. we have to make sure we and these projects in the future quicker part of the second thing i want to mention is pressure on

the vendor. what will be done in the future about making sure that these contracts that we negotiate give you the opportunity to put pressure in the vendor. in the business world in manufacturing, suppliers for manufacturers as, say in the automobile industry, constantly the prime vendor is going back to them and telling them to make it for less to the point where they think they cannot make any money. they are constantly putting pressure on them which spurs innovation for that company to find a way to get rid of inefficiencies and get something done as quickly as possible. are there people working for you who have that experience, who are going to the vendor and pressuring the heck out of the vendor to wring out inefficiencies and do things cheaper? do you have the flexibility in

your contract to make them do things cheaper? will your contracts going for give you all the tools you need to put you more in a setting as if you were a large company so that we can get the most cost- effective product possible? >> senator, you put your finger on just about every major issue of acquisition. policy and practice. i will try to address the three major issues you pointed to prefers was the practice which does occur of bidding low and then you have yourself a program and the country depends upon the program and the cost goes up but we still of the program. that dynamic is one that the

weapons system acquisition reform act was intended to interdict by having us requiring us to a realistic cost estimate up front so that we would not just be buying the cost estimate of the vendor. we need to keep at that. we now have a mechanism for doing that. about changing requirements, that is something that we have to be bills -- vigilant about so that you do not come in and decide later that that was not really what she wanted and you want more and it will cost you more. that is connected to your point about pressure on the vendor in one way that is worth noting is that in the contract structure, and that is the dynamic between the government and the contractor.

two contract types are poor. but in different circumstances. if you're in a circumstance where you know what you want on the government side and and you will not change that, is a fairly well defined article. it is reasonable to ask the vendor to give a fixed price and the burden is on them to control costs. this is great. we want to do more and more of that. it is on reasonable when we do not know what we want. sometimes, we don't know what we want for a good reason because we are doing an exploratory of new military capability. elsewhere, we are trying to do more of our transactions in a fixed price of way for just the reason that you say. that requires everybody to get real. we have to get real about what we want and not change. the contractor needs to get real about what it costs to deliver

it. >> can i interrupt you? when we don't know what we want but we are in the developmental stage, do we get the vendor to pick up some of that cost? when i get the opportunity to get an f-35 for 20 or 30 years, i would think that they will bear some of the expense. you have a big prize out there that should give them some incentive to bear some of those costs. >> the traditional practice for a development that requires an engine and therefore whose future unfolding is legitimately uncertain is to audit and reimburse the contractor's cost and at 2 that a fee.

-- and add to that a fee. it is not reasonable to expect a vendor to give you a price when you don't know what you want or what you can get it at all. where we come into this program in the joint strike fighter program, when we ramp up to production, it is no reasonable to say to the contractor to give me a price for the next lot of jets. we want them to figure it out and we will hold them to that price. it is now mature enough that it should be possible to price the performance and advanced. >> hi will conclude -- i will conclude with the traditional practice of paying them for a product that will sell to was does not seem to make a lot of sense to me.

i am looking at it from the private sector perspective. i understand that sometimes, i don't know why this is buzzing -- i understand that sometimes that might have to be the way because it is too big of an expense for them to bear. i would encourage you in the future that if these contractors want these work, to use your power as the purchaser to extract concessions out of them on the front side to see if they will help finance some of the research and development. on the question of creep and making sure we do not have that, are we at a disadvantage on our side that the vendor stays constant of folks like you and others progress and there will be new secretary, so and so?

do we not have the constancy on our side? has anything been done creatively to make sure there is something on our side because continuity? >> excellent point, people do change jobs more rapidly in government than in industry. programs take a long time and the commitments made to remain solid over that time. as we come into these jobs, people need to respect the commitment that was made by predecessors in the interest of stability in a program unless there is really something wrong. it gets back to another point you made that is important which is how long these programs take. i think that time is the variable that we do not manage

enough in general in our programs. the dynamic is that if you have a program that runs into trouble, the first thing to do is to come and get more money for it. there is only so much money every year so that only goes so far and your next step, if you cannot get money, is to kick the program to the right. these things stretch out to the right. an 11-year program is 10% more expensive than a 10-year program. that is concerning to me. not only by the time you get that thing, it might not be what you want or we have forgotten what we bought in the first place but it is more expensive than it should be. managing the berryville of time is an important -- managing the variable of time is an important point. >> i thank you all and for your service and your focus on these

important issues. >> on that one important point that was raised about the creep up requirements and increases -- what we did in this bill, we created a configuration to make sure that if there is proposed change in a mission or a requirement that it goes to a board for approval. we understand that this is slow getting those boards going. >> a couple of minutes left in this hearing. we will leave it out for live coverage of the u.s. house. you can watch this hearing any time online at our website, c- span.org. the house is about to gavel in to begin their week. we will have morning speeches. six bills are being considered

today. one will mark the beginning of the iranian new year and wishing them well congressional pay and extending the faa programs are also on the docket. there is also a tax extension bill and health and employment subsidies. we will take you to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 15, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable mazie k. hirono to act as

speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. this week marks the homestretch of the health care debate. reform will pass if people focus on the facts and the opportunities. no more outsourcing our analysis to the talking heads. now, facts matters and the

american people should find them. health care is in crisis, not just because we pay more for mediocre results in our health care system. the number of uninsured americans is increasing, soon to reach 50 million americans. and health insurance is getting worse for those who already have it. it's more expensive, they have higher co-pays, higher premiums, then people have to fight to get their health bills paid. the united states is the only industrialized country where people go bankrupt from health care. this year 1,000 people that i represent back in oregon will go bankrupt from health care costs, and most of them will have health insurance. medicare is a great success story. most of us recognize that. it was enacted over many of the

same objections that i'm now hearing from my republican colleagues 45 years ago. medicare has been responsible for our senior citizens getting the health care outcomes that people in most other developed countries enjoy. opponents attack government-paid insurance in france, germany, switzerland and canada, but most american families would welcome the health care results in those countries, where people get sick less often, they get well faster and they live longer and they pay far less than americans. we have a huge problem because medicare is at risk. it's on an unsustainable financial path while it penalizes low-cost, high-value states like mine in oregon or wisconsin or iowa.

the house bill shows how to make those important reforms. finally, part of the problem today is that there continue to be brutal political attacks that are unfettered by the truth and history. i take some of this a little personally because my bipartisan legislation to help families make sure that their end-of-life decisions are respected, morphed into the sarah palin, quote, death panel, which i'm pleased to be judged the lie of the year. the mandate to buy insurance which has been an object of attack was in fact a republican idea that was introduced in the early 1960's as an opposition to the approach that was offered by the clinton administration.

and now we're having people fight to prevent any change in medicare despite the fact that they admit it's on an unsustainable path and they themselves have proposed some of the most draconian efforts to cut, some would say gut it, in the past. is the legislation that we will be considering this week perfect? no. it's not. of course i've only been here 14 years and i have not seen a, quote, perfect bill. and the sad decision that was made to follow republican leader boehner's admonition to not legislate but to communicate to talk and argue actually made it harder to make good legislation. is this the final word in health care reform? not by a long shot. we'll be working to refine and improve this legislation for

months and indeed years to come. but is it worth doing? absolutely. this is a critically important step, the most important since medicare was created 45 years ago. the gist of this legislation passed the senate 10 weeks ago, a month before that the house passed its legislation. the facts are clear, the legislation is available. if the public and congress focus on the facts, this bill will pass and a sick american health care system will start to get better. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. stearns: madam speaker, in 1974 congress passed the congressional budget act. this all created an optional

procedure we now know as the budget reconciliation process. the chief purpose of the reconciliation process was to enhance congress' ability to change the current law in order to bring revenue and spending levels into alignment with the budget resolution. that is a definition of a reconciliation bill, to control government spending, not to enact new policies. the last reconciliation bill passed by congress was in the year 2007. this process was first used in 1980, and in 1985 senator robert byrd had the senate adopt a temporary rule to curve reconciliation to move extraneous materials outside of the budget process. this rule is known today as the byrd rule. the byrd rule has been extended and modified over the years, and in 1990 was made permanent when congress amended the codge budget act of 19 -- congressional budget act of

1974. a senator who is opposed to the inclusion of extraneous material in the reconciliation bill may have a point of order to strike that provision. it has six provisions of what constitutes extraneous matter. the bill language must produce a change and outlays or revenues. two, the bill cannot increase the deficit for fiscal years beyond the budget window. the provision is now -- the third is a provision is a nonbudgetary component which has a fiscal effect outside the treasury. so today, madam speaker, the house budget committee will be meeting to mark up a budget reconciliation bill. despite the house not having done a budget for the fiscal year 2011, the budget committee is going forward with reconciliation authority from last year's budget. the reconciliation process is being used to pass the

senate-passed health care bill in the house and to get the senate to amend the reconciliation bill or law without fear of a filibuster. now, the press is reporting that the rules committee will report a rule that will deem the senate health care bill as passed with the adoption of the rule. and we only have a chance to debate and vote on the budget reconciliation. this is outrageous and absurd. the majority will claim that they will only be -- that they will only be voting on the rule when in fact they'll be voting on accepting the senate bill. last year the house was passing bills without reading them. this year they're passing bills without voting on them. this 2,309-page document makes a mockery of the entire budget reconciliation process. this monstrosity will be used to force a senate health care bill reform on american people that have spoken up loudly and

spoken up to reject its back room deals and special interest giveaways. yet, the democratic leadership will ask its members to vote for the rule which will self-enact the senate bill, the entire health care bill and the hope that the senate democrats will vote later for reconciliation that the senate parliamentarian will uphold the provisions inside the reconciliation bill which includes a self-enacting rule vis-a-vis health care bill. now, this is my understanding. there's no precedent for what the democrats are doing. there's never been a reconciliation process as corrupt as what is happening this week. we have never written a reconciliation bill to amend a law that doesn't exist. we've never had a reconciliation bill that was so far outreaching scope. this bill would seek to offer 1/6 of our economy permanently. thomas jefferson, the founding father and author of the first senate rules states, quote, the

minority possesses their equal rights which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. the democrats are violating the minority rules by this procedure. if the byrd rule applied to the house we would never be able to pass the budget reconciliation. this bill, these tactics are being used, go way too far. it undermines the process of creating laws. the right to offer amendments and the right to vote on a bill. it may not be politically safe for the majority, but we should have a proper vote up and down on this health care bill and our ability to amend the senate bill. as legislators, we were sent here by our constituents to vote, not to hide. the proposed rule and the budget reconciliation bill undermine our rights enumerated within the constitution. so i urge the democrat majority to rethink their whole procedure for bringing up the senate health care bill. enacting a rule which includes

health care will mean that once it passes the house it will go directly to the senate, will not return to the senate and the president will sign it and become law. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. >> six bills are being considered today including wishing the iranian people the happy holiday. there will be health insurance subsidy bills. more live coverage on the house at 2:00 p.m. eastern, here on c- span. the health-care debate moves to the house budget committee today

as committee members markup health care legislation. we will have live coverage beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span 3, cspan radio, and our website c-span.org. the budget meeting is part of an effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18. democrats want to have the budget committee approved a bill under expedited reconciliation procedures. the rules committee will meet on wednesday to work out the structure for the debate. house speaker nancy pelosi says she hopes to start debate on thursday with both possible later in the week. stay attuned to cspan for the latest on the health care debate. visit our healthcare public. hub. you can join in the conversation yourself on twitter. you can also find cost estimates for the bills and hundreds of hours of zero video from the house and senate floor debate, committee hearings, markups and other event. cspan's healthcare hub, c-

span.org/healthcare. >> coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern, president barack obama will continue his push for health-care legislation. he will be at a recreation center in strongsville, ohio. we will bring you his remarks at 1:00 p.m. here on c-span. your phone calls and comments from today's "washington journal."

five police of a search are slain and the bodies of eight men are fine -- founded of acapulco as students are arriving for spring break. foreign bidder -- visitors have begun to arrive for spring break free the president released a statement yesterday about drug violence and we will review some of that in a moment. let's first from flore -- let's hear first from florida on our independent line.

caller: we have to authorize cocaine and marijuana to be sold in our pharmacies. host: let's here from atlanta on our independent line. what about drug violence in mexico? caller: i stopped watching c- span sense you have mostly idle chatter. like the previous caller, legalized drugs. legalize all of them, all the opium products, take the profit motive out t. killing will stop instantly because the people who want to tell us will not have any money. the point is,

host: what about the social cost? it might sell the violence problem but what about health care costs, treatment issues like that in the united states if drugs were legalized? caller: the people who want to get drugs get them. there is no problem with getting drugs. if you make them legal and provide clinics and facilities to get them off drugs, fine. there is a huge cost in letting people make huge amounts of money from drugs and violence associated with it. that is unconscionable. if we actually do this, is bad for business. does that for the defense industry, the prison industry, the dea because there will be no need for them. that is the problem we have institutionalized the never

ending wars against drugs. host: what can the u.s. do about mexican drug pilots? caller: there is nothing we can do about mexican drug of violence. the thing we can do in the united states to lessen the drug violence in mexico is, hello? people that want to do drugs in this country will do them, no matter what. thank you host: for your input.

here is the report yesterday of the president's comments. he was outraged at consulate murders in mexico. he was deeply saddened and outraged at the news of the murders of federal employees and two relatives of workers at the u.s. consulate in juarez, mexico. the national security spokesman gave a response to the brutal murders. the president extended his console -- condolences to the family and condemns these attacks on diplomatic personnel serving in our foreign missions. he said we will work tirelessly to bring the killers to justice. san diego is next on our republican line, go ahead. caller: all this libertarian talk about legalizing drugs and violence will go away. we should of sealed off the

border and stop communication with mexico. they are a third world country. we do so much for them already and we open our borders to them. it would just shut up this border -- it is outrageous and san diego. the amount of people -- i think it is an invasion of the mexican population. why are we taking care of their people anyway? we to close off the border until mexico takes care of their problem with drugs. host: here is the lead story in "the orange county register." local groups are split

the problem is that legalizing drugs will make everything go away. why do you think what happens with people who get involved with drugs? the usual drug dealers don't work. when they do not have money to buy their drugs, they go out and commit crimes to get the money to buy their drugs. legalizing drugs will never work in this country. i believe we should close the borders of, put the fans between mexico and let them handle their own problems and let them take care of their own british business. -- their own business. host: what are your thoughts on the mexican drug problem? what can the u.s. do? caller: i have been a marijuana smoker for decades. that is all i do. i smoke a mary jane and that is

about it. host: how do you get your drugs? caller: they are everywhere. host: do you agree with the folks who say to legalize drugs tax calaller: 0 yes, marijuana should be legalized host: let's hear from las cruces, new mexico. caller: as we sit here in new mexico -- i agree with the previous caller -- i disagree with the previous caller who says this is mexico's problem. a lot of this originates here because the appetite for drugs. i agree we should legalize marijuana but not the harder drugs. i think we need to get more involved and help the mexican government more. we have troops all around the world in iraq and afghanistan.

our own next-door neighbor is ignored. it is starting to hit home now. we need to help more with social policies and economic development with mexico. we need to directly fight the drug wars. i think we will have to consider an option of getting involved militarily. we look at the drug lords and mexico as terrorists. host: we read a lot about border violence. what is it like in new mexico, particularly in a loss crucis and places like that? how do you see this rising crime across the border in your town? do you see any manifestation of that in las cruces, new mexico? caller: occasionally, you hear

about homicides and things like that. which are directly linked to the drug trade. you hear about it. it is probably in the bigger cities like phoenix and albuquerque. k6this is happening. this is where the drug dealers go through to get to ottawa. -- i a lot. -- iowa. it is really our problem. now and it has been for a while. maybe this will wake up our federal government and make them realize we need to get more involved with what is happening to our neighbors to the south before we start feeling more of

it. we send troops all over the world, thousands of miles away and yet we ignore what is happening in our backyard. if our neighbor next door had a problem, we would want to do something about it. it is in our best interest and we will have to get more involved at some point. host: thank you for the input. let's hear from florida on our republican line, good morning. caller: i am here to tell you that this -- that there is not a single dealer that once drug legalized. they would not make money on it. despite how you feel about whether people do drugs, i personally think is morally wrong for a human being to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own person. if you are breaking in my house, they should throw you in

prison for that but not because you want to alter your mind in a specific fashion that the government does not approve of. booze is fine, prescription drugs or a problem in this country now. if you legalize it and close the borders, they should done that years ago. if you legalize it, that is where the profit comes from. host: about 50 more minutes. -- about 15 more minutes. about what the u.s. should do about drug violence. ellis about that. guest: a $15 billion package

that passed the house last week. guest: this bill that is coming before the house is about tax breaks for companies putting people back to work. these are provisions that allow companies to write opera script -- equipment purchases. -- to write off equipment purchases. the republicans hope to see final passage on this. host: how many jobs will this senate bill that they're working on today going to generate tax guest: there are lots of disputes about that. it depends on who you ask. republicans wrote it largely

against the measure in the house. 70 members voted for!÷m it it ws because there was a dispute over whether this would actually create jobs. members who are pushing this think this will have the greatest impact on jobs. we will see whether that will help the unemployment rate in the short term. host: you wrote about the filibuster that senator bunning had held against the tax extenders. in the midst of that, it meant that a number of federal workers were temporarily furloughed. what is the status of that legislation? guest: it is being discussed in the senate right now.

there's a bill that the senate is trying to push through that would allow the furloughed workers be paid for the days that they missed, two days in the standoff with jim buinning. centre cockburn is lark -- is blocking that largely because it was not paid for. -- senator coburn is blocking that largely because it was not paid for. democrats are trying to move this quickly and they think of s.e. emergency spending. >> we will leave this "washington journal" meant to go live to president barack obama. he is in ohio today outside of cleveland in the city of strongsville. friday, the white house said the president would postpone his trip to the east to stay and

lobby house members for health care. the house budget committee is scheduled to start the debate on health care today. this is live coverage on c-span. >> we are ascq responsible fore premiums. make no mistake about it, we need health care reform and we need it now. [applause] . .

>> congratulations on winning the the big 10 lead shavian shift. -- big 10 championship. i am filling out my brackets.

[cheering] that tournament looks pretty good. you guys are doing all right. i am wonderful to -- it is wonderful to be here. i love you back. the governor is in the house. he is working every day to bring jobs to ohio and so is your terrific senator brown. [applause] your own congressman who is tireless on behalf of working people dennis kucinich. [applause]

did you hear that, dennis? say that again. a couple other members of congress are here. u.s. representative that the sutton -- betty sutton. u.s. rep marcia, tim ryan, charlie wilson. i want to thank mr. mayor. [applause] that is a good bunch of people we have here in ohio. they are working hard. that is why i am glad to be back. let's face it. it is slice it is nice to be out

of washington. i want to thank connie. but what to think connie, who introduced me, and her family for being here on behalf of her sister. i do not know if everyone understood that she is in the hospital right now. connie was filling in. it is not easy to share such a personal story when your sister, who you love so much, is said. i appreciate connie being willing to do so here today. [applause] that whenever one to understand that connie and her sister are the reason that i am here today.

i felt was important that her sister's story was told. i want to repeat what was happening. last month i got a letter from connie's sister. she is self-employed, trying to make men -- trying to make ends meet, for years she has done the responsible thing. she bought insurance. she did not have an employer who provided it. she bought it in the individual market. it was important for her to have insurance because 16 years ago she was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer. even though she had been cancer free for more than one decade, the insurance companies kept jacking up rates. increased her out of pocket expenses. she waved her deductible. she did everything she could to maintain her health insurance

that would be there just in case she got sick. she figured she did not wish to be in a position where if she did get sick that someone would have to pick up the tab. she did, the cost to be shifted on to people through their higher premiums or hospitals charging more. she tried to do the right thing. she asked her deductible -- she upped for deductible to the highest possible deductible. despite that, the insurance company raised her premiums more than 25%. for the past year she paid more than $6,000 in monthly premiums. she paid more than $4,000 in out of pocket medical costs for copays, medical care, and prescriptions. altogether this woman paid

$10,000 but because she never hit her deductible her insurance company only spent $900 on her care. they are making -- they are getting $10,000 and paying only $900. what comes in the mail at the end of last year? it is a letter telling her that her premiums would go up again by more than 40%. here is what happens. she could not afford it. she did not have the money. she realized that if she paid this health insurance premiums that have been jacked up by 40% that she could not make her mortgage. despite her desire to keep her coverage, despite her fears that she would get sick and lose the home that her parents built she

finally surrendered and give up her health insurance. she stopped paying. she could not make ends meet. january was last month of being insured. like so many responsible americans, people who work hard every day and tried to do the right thing, she was forced to hang her fortunes on chance. that was all she could do. she hoped against hope that she would stay healthy. she feared terribly that she might not stay healthy. that was the letter that i read to the insurance companies including the personal responsible for raising her rates. i understand she was proud when she found out i had read it to the c.e.o. i thought it was important for them to understand the human dimension of this problem. her rates had been hiked more than 40%.

this was less than two weeks ago. her worst fears were realized. just last week she was working -- walking chasing after a cow when she collapsed. she was rushed to the hospital. she needed two blood transfusions. doctors performed a battery of tests and she was diagnosed with leukemia. the reason the shares not here today is because she is lying in a hospital bed suddenly faced with this emergency and faced with the five of her life. she expects to face more than one month of aggressive chemotherapy. she is racked with the worry about her illness and the cost of the tests and treatment she is surely going to need to be this. you want to know why i am here,

ohio? i am here because of her. i am here because of the countless others who have been forced to face the most terrifying challenges in their lives with medical bills they cannot pay. i do not think that is right and neither do you. that is why we need health insurance right now. health insurance reform right now. [applause] i am here because of my own mother's story. she died of cancer. in the last six months of her life she was on the phone with the hospital are dealing with insurance companies instead of focusing on getting well and spending time with her family. i am here because of the millions who are uncovered because of pre-existing conditions or drop from coverage

when they get sick. [applause] i am here because of the small businesses who are forced to choose between health care and hiring. i am here because of the seniors unable to afford the prescriptions that they need. [applause] i'm here because of people saying their premiums go up 20% sign-off 40%, 60% in one year. ohio, i am here because that is not the america i believe in. that is not the america you believe in. when you hear people say, start over, i want you to think about that woman. when you hear people say that

this is not the right time, you think about what she is going for. when you hear people talking about, what does this mean for the democrats, republicans? i do not know how the polls are doing. when you hear people who are more worried about the politics of it than what is right and what is wrong, i want you to think about notoma and the millions of people all across this country who are looking for help and relief. that is why we need health insurance reform right now. [cheers and applause] you know, part of what makes this difficult is that most of us do have health insurance. we still do. we kind of feel like, well, it

is working for me and i'm not worrying too much. but we have to understand is what is happening to notoma there but for the grace of god go any one of us. [applause] by anyone here, if you lost your job right now, and after cobra ran out, looks like someone may have fainted and we have a medic. hold on. there is someone who might have fainted. hold on. if we could get a medic. just give him or her son's face. -- him or her some space. think about if you lost your job

right no. how many people here might have a pre-existing condition that would mean it would be very hard to get health insurance on the individual market? think about if you wanted to change jobs. think about if you wanted to start your own business that you had to give up your health insurance. think about if a child of yours, heaven forbid, gets diagnosed with something. for so many people it may not be a problem right now but it will be a problem later. even if you have good health insurance, what is happening to your premiums, co-payments, deductibles? they are all going up. that is money out of your pocket. the bottom line is this. the status quo on health care is simply unsustainable. [applause] we cannot have a system that

works better for the insurance companies than it does for the american people. [applause] we know what will happen if we fail to act. we know that our government will plunges deeper into debt. we know that millions more people will lose coverage. we know that rising costs will saddle millions of families with unavoidable expenses. and a lot of people will die -- will drop coverage altogether. that is already happening. a study came out yesterday, a nonpartisan study, it found that without reform that premiums could more than doubled for individuals and families over the next decade.

family policies could go to an average of $25,000 or more. can you afford that? do you think you're an employer can afford that? your employer cannot sustain that. what is going to happen is they are basically, more and more of them, are going to say you are on your own with this. we have debated this issue now for more than one year. every proposal has been put on the table and every argument has been made. i know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue. look. both parties have a lot of areas where we agree and politics are getting in the way of getting things done. [applause] somebody asked what our plan is.

let me describe exactly what we are doing. we have ended up with a proposal that incorporates the best ideas from democrats and republicans even though republicans don't give them any credit. that is all right. you know, if you think about the debates around health care reform there are some who wanted to scrap the system of private insurance and replace it with government run care. that works in a number of places, but i did not see that being practical to get help right away for people who really need it. on the other end of the spectrum, and this is what a lot of the republicans are saying right now, there are those who simply believe the answer is to unleash the insurance industry and deregulate them further providing them less oversight

and fewer rules. this is called the henhouse approach to insurance reform. what it would do is it would give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums, decide care, and it would segment the market further. it would be good if you are rich and healthy. you would save money. if you are an ordinary person, get older, get sicker you would be paying more. now, i do not believe we should give the government or more insurance companies more but i think it is time to give you, the american people, more control over your own health insurance. [applause] that is what our proposal does. our proposal builds on the current system where most

americans get their insurance from their employers. if you like your plan you can keep your plant. if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. i do not want to interfere. essentially, here is an admirer " -- here is what my proposal would change. these are three important things. a number one, it would end the worst practices of the insurance companies. [applause] this is like a patient's bill of rights on steroids. [laughter] within the first year of citing health care reform, thousands of uninsured americans with pre- existing conditions will be able to purchase insurance for the first times in their lives since they got sick. [applause]

insurance companies will be banned forever for denying coverage to children pre- existing conditions. [cheers and applause] this year under this legislation, insurance companies will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. this practice is well and. -- this practice will end. with this reform package, on the insurance plans would be required to offer free preventative care to their customers starting this year. free checkups to catch preventable diseases on the front end. that is the smart thing to do. [cheers and applause] starting this year, if you buy a

new plan and there will be -- there will not be a lifetime or annual restricted limits on the amount of care so you will not be surprised by the fine print that says they suddenly sought -- stop paying. that will not happen. [applause] i see some young people in the audience. if you are an uninsured young adults you will be able to stay on your parents' policy until you are 26-years old. [cheers and applause] #1, insurance reform.

the second thing that this plan would change about the current system is this -- for the first time, an insured individuals, small businesses which have the same kind of choices that members of congress that for themselves. -- get for themselves. [applause] understand that if this becomes a law, members of congress will be getting their insurance from the same class that the insured does. if it is good enough for the congress, it is a good enough for the people who send us to washington. [applause] basically it would happen is we would set up a pool, millions of people around the world would buy in to give them more

negotiating power. if you work for a big company you have got a better deal because you have a better bargaining power as a whole. we want you to have all the bargaining power that the federal and police have, big companies have so you will be able to buy aniline for small businesses will be the to buy into this pool. that is money out of pocket. what my proposal says is if you cannot still afford health insurers that we will offer you a tax credit. this will add up to the largest middle-class tax cut in history. that is what we're going to there. [applause] -- that is what we are going to do. when i was talking about this on the health care summit, it was about seven hours, i know you watched the whole thing. some of these people said it was

a nice idea but we could not afford to do it. i want everyone to understand. the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance. the least wealthy, the poorest, they get their health care through medicaid. it is the middle class, working people, that are getting squeezed and that is who we have to help. we can afford to do it. [applause] now, it is true that providing these tax credits to middle- class families and small businesses will cost some money. it will cost about -- but most of this will come from the $2.50 trillion per year that americans already spent on

health care. right now is being spent badly. right now and this plan, we will make sure the dollars to spend on health care will go to make insurance more affordable and secure. we will eliminate wasteful subsidies that go to insurance companies. there are making billions of dollars on subsidies from you, the taxpayer. if we take those subsidies the way we can use them to help people like if notoma get health insurance so she does not lose her house. [applause] yes, we will put a new fee on insurance companies because they stand to gain millions more customers who are buying insurance. there is nothing wrong with them getting -- giving something back. here is the bottom line. this is more than can be said

for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they passed that big prescription drug plan that cost about as much as my health care plan and they did not pay for any of it. now they are up there on their high horse talking about how we do not want to expand the deficit. this one does not expand the deficit. their plan did. that is why we pay for what we do. that is the responsible thing to do. [applause] now, let me talk about the third thing. that is my proposal to bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the federal government. americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today, i already said this, would see premiums fall by 40% to 24%. that is not my number. that is what the nonpartisan

congressional budget office said. for americans to get their interest to the workplace, how many people are doing that right now? raise your hands. all right. a lot of those people, your employer would see premiums fall by as much as 3000% of which would mean they could give you a raise. [cheers and applause] we have incorporated most serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising costs of health care. we go after the waste and abuses of the system, especially against medicare. our cost cutting measures would reduce most people's premiums and bring down our deficit up to $1 trillion over the next two decades. those are not my numbers. there are determined by the congressional budget office. they are the referees.

that is what they say, not what i say. the opponents of reform try to make a lot of different arguments to stop these changes. first they said it was a government takeover of health care. well, that was not true. then they said, what about death panels? that did not turn out to be true. yet, the most insidious argument they are making is the idea that this would hurt medicare. i know we have some seniors here with us today. i could not tell. you guys look great. [laughter] i would not have guessed. i went to tell you directly that this proposal adds almost one decade of solvency to medicare. [applause] this proposal would close the

gaps in printer -- a prescription drug coverage called the doughnut hole. it sticks seniors with thousands of dollars in drug costs. this will help overtime to help reduce the cost of medicare that you pay every month. this proposal will make preventive care free city do not have to pay out of pocket for tests to keep you healthy. [applause] so, yes. we are going after the waste, fraud, abuse in medicare. we are eliminating some of the insurance subsidies that should be going towards your care. these dollars should be spent on care for seniors not on feeding the insurance companies through sweetheart deals. everyone should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed medicare benefits. . . , no ifs, ands, or buts.

period. this proposal makes medicare stronger, the courage better, and the finances more secure. anyone who says otherwise is misinformed or trying to misinform you. do not let them hoodwinking. we do -- hoodwink you. [laughter] ohio, that is the proposal. i believe congress owes the american people. they owe the american people a final up or down vote. [applause] we need an up or down vote. it is time to vote. as we get closer to the vote, there is a lot of people by hammering. we hear people in washington talking about politics, what

this means in november, the poll numbers for democrats, republicans. we need courage. [applause] that is what we need. that is why i came here today. we need courage. [cheers and appaluse] -- applause] we need courage. in the end, this debate is about far more than politics. it comes down to what kind of country do we want to be? it is about the millions of lives that would be touched and in some cases saved by making health insurance more secure and affordable. it is about a woman who is lying in a hospital bed and just wants

to be able to pay for the care she needs. the truth is what is at stake in this debate is not just our ability to solve this problem but our ability to solve any problem. i was talking to dennis kucinich about this. i said, you know what? it has been such a long time since we made government on the side of ordinary working people. where we did something for them that relieves some of their struggles, that made people who work harder every day and looking out for their families contributing to their communities to give them a little bit of a better chance to live out their american dream.

the american people want to know if it is still possible for washington to look out for their interests, their future. what they are looking for is -- for is for courage. there are waiting for us to act. they're waiting for us to lead. they do not want us to put our finger out to the wind, reading polls. they want us to look and see what is the best thing for america and then do what is right. as long as i hold this office i intend to provide that leadership and i know these members of congress are going to provide that leadership. i do not know about the politics. i know what the right thing to do is. i am calling on congress to pass these reforms. i'm going to sign them into law. i want the courage. i want us to do the right thing, ohio. with your help we will make this

happen. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪

♪

"the stars and stripes forever" ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> the health-care debate moves to the house budget committee today. as committee members mark of health care legislation, we will have live coverage beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio and on our web site at c- span.org. the budget meeting is part of the effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18th. they say democrats want to have the budget committee approved the bill and an expedited reconciliation procedures. the rules committee will meet on thursday. speaker pelosi says she hopes to start the vote on thursday. stay tuned to c-span for the latest on the health-care debate. you can read the legislation, see with the president and members of congress are saying,

and join in on the conversation yourself on twitter. you can find cost estimates for the bills and hundreds of hours of video from the house and senate floor debates, committee hearings, markups, and other events. c-span.org/healthcare. >> our mission is to make the world more open and connected. we do that by providing people a free tool whereby they can share information with anyone, anywhere, at any time. >> with more than 400 million users it is the fastest-growing website in the world. the facebook public policy director tonight on "the communicators." >> the house is in session today. members are in recess and will battle back in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. six bills are being considered including one marking the

beginning of the iranian new year. also possible, this week extending faa programs. they could also consider a tax extension bill that includes health insurance subsidies for jobless workers. more live house coverage here at 2:00 p.m. eastern. as the house returns for legislative business at 2:00 p.m., until then we have live coverage of a political roundtable from today's washington journal -- from today's washington"journal." richard cohen covers congress for "the washington journal." kathy kiley covers congress for "usa today." joining us this morning, thank you both. richard, after the november vote you did an extensive piece on how nancy pelosi did it. there is a lot in that article the talk about.

what specific steps will she take to get the votes that she needs? guest: the most important thing that she has to get to this week is 260 members. -- 216 members. it will take a lot of work to get those final votes on board. over the weekend we heard from democratic leaders, it seems the votes will get their at 100%, but it will be a struggle for commercial reporters. but exciting to watch. host: you wrote that the november vote was a very personal battle this year. health care was not necessarily her signature piece that she

worked on. in terms of her going at it again, going around again, what will she tried to do different this time? guest: what she has to do differently is deal with the fact that we have an election that is seven months away and a number of house democratic members are running scared, facing tough contests. what she will try to do, what she has to do, with those swing members, in many cases she and other members of the leadership, folks from the white house, are going to have to satisfy -- they have certain members, voting for that bill being in their best interest when they're running for reelection. host: we had a bit of an editorial earlier, they

basically said that some of the efforts will suffer in the election and that that is just the way that it will be. how quickly will that remain a political argument for the members concerned about the vote? guest: you heard nancy pelosi talk about it last weekend, sometimes you just have to cast a vote in led the consequences fall where they fall. i was curious to ask richard if he thought that retirement helped or hurt. a number of democrats are stepping down, some of them blue dogs. guest: it will hurt nancy pelosi in the election, these retiring blue dog democrats, it will be tough for the party to keep them. but it will be easier for a

couple of them to vote for the bill that they might have previously voted against. host: our phone lines are open. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. our guests are with us until 8:30 to talk about congressional leadership in the upcoming health care debate. maryland, good morning. caller: i want to give some background on what america is. we produced more goods than france, britain, and a german -- germany combined back in 1915. they had been able to control the media back then.

"give me the power to print your money and i do not care who writes the laws." all of these wall street bankers, they are all subsidiaries appea. host: a couple of articles seem to indicate that this bill, like health care, will attract republican and democratic support. even given the concerns last week over the bill, there is more likely to be some working together on that? guest: this is one of the

opportunities. there are a number of them. climate change is another, maybe even immigration. i think that the health-care debate has become very charged, but there are other examples of legislation, if these big money people had purchased the media, why am i getting paid the same? [laughter] host: take the set aside for a second in the relationship between -- senate side for a second, mitch mcconnell and harry reid, this sort we are they as far apart as they possibly could be in the senate? guest: i think that what people do not appreciate is that the leaders of congress actually do not have these bitter, partisan

relationships. not the way that people might think. i would be interested in hearing richard posner take on this as well. . including in the campaign. i guess i wednesday and that a bit differently in the many

years that i have been fortunate enough to cover congress, especially in the house. this is a broader scene here. the power of the leadership, especially in the house. they have taken in both parties guest. guest: it used to be the committee chairman. a key turning point was when they won control of the house and senate in 1994 and new gingrich became the speaker. speaker and ran the house pretty suspect -- effectively. it resulted in the weakening of the committee chairman. that continued in 2006. as a result, the leadership,

democrats and republicans, are at each other. yes, they have to get along, they do business, but it is all lot rougher than it is in the senate. host: you write about charlie rangel, in addition to leadership, taking on the role -- you write a problem was that there were some missed deadlines. guest: the reason the committee system was created and the reason it has prospered is bills

have gone to committees like ways and means because they have the expertise. what has happened since 1995 with newt gingrich, now with into pelosi, power has been reduced by the committees and to the speakership. you do not have the committee's claim the role like they used to. host: next phone call. addy on the democratic line. caller: first of all, this is not president obama's agenda, this is my agenda. i need insurance. people are making it a race thing. we need help. host: give us more about the president's relationship with the senate, harry reid?

guest: he came from the senate, did not spend too much time there. he certainly had the support of senator reid and his campaign. i once had a campaign event in nevada when then-candidate obama was running for president. harry reid introduced him ground they. he spoke to some of us after, really looking forward to working with now president obama. i think their relationship is a good one, but i think it is a difficult piece of legislation. moscow in terms of getting that through, has he shown more or

less patience than president bush? guest: i think he has been lasting gauged with the details but has been more so in deferring to congress and the leaders of congress to have them work on the specific deal. they have been almost encouraged by the president to do the deal, do the lobbying. this is a different kind of relationship played by the president compared to past presidents of both parties. host: truck from maryland. republican call. caller: i know we are talking about with the leadership says to the american people, but there will be no stop in the

rise of health care premiums. the people who think that they can get health care at a reasonable price, it will not happen. medical services are still going to be expensive. i have been in business for 34 years. i have seen the increases. getting this bill done will not lower premiums. my insurance broker told me of several occasions that for the next four years, might bring in the will quadruple for my employees because there is nothing in the bill that goes into affect until 2014. maryland is one. those premiums are set by the

state insurance commission with the insurance companies. and no one is burning this stuff out. they think this $1 trillion is all that is going to be but it will be astronomical. all of this country -- companies will raise their rates for the next four years and there is nothing to stop them. the american people are being given bills. that lady just said she needs insurance and one said. there is no vehicle until this thing gets into a fact -- gets into effect. that will be four years. we will get increases in taxes and cuts in medicare. that is the part being left out with all of this span. host: thinking for weighing in. any thoughts? guest: i think the caller personifies one of the reasons why this is very difficult for

the democrats. there is a lot of anxiety about what the effect of this will be. frank the, i think when you are doing social engineering, which is what this is all about, there are unintended consequences. there are all concerned. on the other side of that argument, i think the proponents of this bill will save there is precedent. t that the prospect of change causes change. in the 1990's when the health care bill was up four serious debate, there was a time when costs started to drop just because the government was talking about doing something. there is that aspect of it. people in favor of this bill would say that you have to start somewhere. if there are things that need to be changed after, then you move

on from there. guest: taking this one step further, this historic week in congress. we do not know the outcome. and they are kind of rolling the dice, speaker pelosi, and it is also historic in the sense that democrats have been trying to enact health care reform since franklin roosevelt was president. not only are they this close to doing it, but if they succeed legislatively, and then we are going to have these major historical questions. is it going to work? will it make for a better health care system? care system? will the >> we are leaving this segment for live coverage of the u.s. house. you can watch this and any

segment any time on our web site, c-span.org. the house is about to gavel in. they have six bills being considered including one marking the beginning of the iranian new year and wishing the iranian people well. live now to the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord, our god, at times we seem to lose our way. personal problems so consume us we find it difficult to look

around and face squarely larger issues which touch us all. you have told us you are the way, the way to freedom, the way to gain proper perspective, the way to follow if only we keep our eyes and fix our expectations on you. lord, guide us in your own way, that we may seek only truth and love life both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, congressman burgess. mr. burgess: please join us to

the pledge and our country. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 12, 2010, at 2:33 p.m. that the senate passed senate 1147. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests

for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: madam speaker, we are in the final throes of the government takeover of america's health care system. we have a shell bill that was posted on the budget committee site last night. it will give rise to the phantom bill. the phantom bill goes over to the rules committee and that is where we get real reconciliation. we probably have a day or two to look at the shell by, a day or two to look at the phantom bill and have no time to look what's in the reconciliation bill. my committee is completely bias to this process. no respect to the oldest standing committee in the united states house of representatives. and speaking of no respect for the oldest standing committee in the house of representatives, our committee sent a request to the white house weeks ago for information regarding the secret deals

there were cut in may and june of last year. as of today no response. now, heather and kelly writing in today's "washington journal" talked no matter the demographic group you look at, men, women -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. burgess: if legislation doesn't pass they will be relieved. we ought to listen to the american eem on this one. i -- people on this one. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, in a recent "washington post" op-ed, here's what two democratic pollsters had to say about the media spin on the administration's health care proposal. quote, nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch democratic politicians and

their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the democrats' current health care plan. outside the majority of americans opposes the massive health reform plan, many more americans believe the reform will cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-delusioned data, closed quote. despite the media spin, the american people are sending a clear message about health care. congress should start over and get it right. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: in august, the

american people flooded town hall meetings and told their representatives to vote no on obamacare. the speaker called them extremists. in november voters in new jersey and massachusetts responded. the white house said it was due to local issues. and they elected a republican to the united states senate for the first time in 38 years. senate democrats said it was because they had nominated a poor candidate. as we approach the vote on obamacare, i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ignore the speaker, ignore the president and ignore the democrats in the senate. just listen to your friends, the voters of america who opposed this $1 trillion, 2,700-page health care monstrosity, and then vote no. in november you'll be glad you did. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. national agriculture week shows the impact that agriculture has on america. it is america's number one export. and it is valued at over $43 billion. the industry generates 20% of the u.s. gross domestic product and 1/5 of the u.s.'s grain, milk and eggs are produced in the united states. nebraska has 47,000 farms and ranches with many located in the third district. i'm proud to represent a district which truly embodies the spirit of this sell ration and i'm glad to be co-chair of the congressional agriculture caucus, a bipartisan group of members who face the challenges of our nation's agriculture producers. it is integral to our nation and i invite our colleagues to join me in celebrating its contribution. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? hirhir madam speaker, i move that -- ms. hirono: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1145 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1145, resolution recognizing the university of arizona's 125 years of dedication to

excellence in higher education. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on house resolution 1145 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hirono: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of h.res. 1145 which recognizes the 125th anniversary of the university of arizona. the university of arizona attained its charter on march 12, 1891, with the authorization of arizona's 13th territorial assembly.

the mission of this new university focused on building a better arizona through access, quality and self-discovery. the university's first day of classes commenced on october 1, 1891, with a small group of 32 students from the surrounding region. the school instantly became a symbol of pride for tucson, arizona. from these humble beginnings, the university of arizona has grown into one of the most prominent universities in the country. the student body contains over 36,000 students, including almost 7,000 graduate students. students are enrolled in 122 undergraduate degree programs, 217 graduate programs, and three professional schools. the university of arizona has gained national accolades for its breakthroughs in science and technology. the university scientific research and development program ranked 15th in the nation by the national science

foundation, played the leading role on nasa's phoenix mars mission, which led to greater understanding of the red planet. for all these accomplishments, the university of arizona is also known forist athletic dominance. the 500 student athletes of the university of arizona compete in over 19 division i sports, winning 20 national championships, 37 pacific 10 titles, including a men's basketball championship in 1997 and eight softball national titles. this year the university of arizona will celebrate 125 years of providing excellence in education and athletics, cultivating young men and women who will become leaders of the nation. madam speaker, once again, i express my support of the university of arizona and wish it and its future students in its endeavors. i thank representative giffords

for bringing this resolution forward. i ask members to join me in supporting this resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 1145, recognizing the university of arizona's 125 years of dedication to excellence in higher education. the university of arizona, located in tucson, arizona, was founded in 1885 and first opened its doors to students in 1891. 32 students applied for the first semester, but only six were admitted to the freshman class. the remaining 26 students were enrolled in a specially established prep school, since there were no high schools in the area. today, the university of arizona has 29,719 undergraduate students, 6,962 graduate students and 1,376

professional and medical students. the university is ranked number 16 among all public universities by the national science foundation. the university has a three-fold commitment to education, research and community service and education and offers more than 300 undergraduate degrees through 20 colleges and other schools. it has academic programs but the students also excels in athletics. the university houses 18 ncaa athletic teams. the university of arizona wildcats basketball team has reached the ncaa tournament for the last 25 consecutive years. the women's softball team is among the top programs in the country and has won eight women's college world series. the university of arizona is designated as both a land grant and space grant institution and research conducted at the

university has led to advances such as the development of cotton and new artificial hearts and has helped in the building of the largest telescopes in the world. the mission of the university is to discover, educate, serve and inspire. and the accomplishments of the students reads like this. i extend my congratulations to the university of arizona for 125 years of excellence in higher education and wish all its faculty, staff, students and alumni continued success. and i would ask my colleagues to support this resolution. i thank the gentlelady from hawaii for being the manager of this bill. and if there's no further speakers, i would -- ms. hirono: we have no further speakers. mrs. biggert: then i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: i join in urging all my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remainder of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1145 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i request the yeas and nays on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. . announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? miss her roanee: i move the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1170. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tight of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1170, resolution congratulating the winners of the voice of democracy national scholarship program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on house resolution 1170 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hirono: i rise today to congratulate the winners of the voice of democracy national

scholarship program. the voice of democracy scholarship program was originally created in 1947 and now in an audio essay contest for high school students in grades 9 through 12 that annually provides more than $3 million in scholarships. the winners are high school students from different parts of the country who clearly articulate and creatively presented american democratic values in a national scholarship competition. the first place winner receives a $30,000 scholarship that is paid directly to the recipient's american university college, vocational, or technical school. every year thousands of students participate in the voice of democracy scholarship competition. with last year's team, quote, does america still have heroes, end quote, this makes democracy come alive and helps students connect their real world experience to contemporary

issues and events. this type of learning is important not only for academic purposes but also for youth engagement. students are able to express their democratic knowledge and responsibilities into a creative art form. madam speaker, i want to congratulate madison mullen, anthony zendeja is iv and lena savell as well as the rest of the winners. i hope all students think about the ideals of democracy and how they can contribute to our society. i thank representative hunter for hig this resolution -- bringing this resolution forward. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. miss biggerert -- mrs. biggert: i rise in support of house resolution 1170 congratulating the winners of the voice of democracy national scholarship program.

the voice of democracy national scholarship program is an audio essay contest for american high school students across the world. students in grades 9 through 12 enter the contest by recording an audio essay. since the beginning the program has provided more than $3 million in scholarship funds to student winners. this year alone, $149,000 in scholarships was awarded to the winners. the voice of democracy's national competition is designed to foster patriotism by providing students with the opportunity to voice their opinion on selected themes. the 2009-2010 school year's theme was, does america still have heroes? america's youth responded with a resounding yes. veterans of foreign affairs began sponsoring this event in 1947 and also sponsors similar national essay competitions for

middle school students. for example patriots pen encourages american students in grades 6 through 8 to write an essay expressing their views on democracy. based on an annual theme, the v.f.w.'s 2.2 million members have fought for america's freedom and continue to give our nation through programs such as voice of democracy. the first, second, and third place winners of the 2009-2010 voice of america's national scholarship competition are madison mullen, anthony zendejas iv, and lena savell respectively. the winners were selected from over 50,000 student entries based on originality, content, and delivery of their audio essays. finalists were invited here to washington, d.c., to deliver their oral essays. participating student essays describe today's heroes in america and i'm sure many of these students will grow up to become tomorrow's heroes.

i'd like to congratulate all the winners, finalists and participants in the voice of democracy's national scholarship program and thank the v.f.w. for providing students with this opportunity. i'd also like to thank my colleague from california, congressman duncan hunter, for sponsoring this resolution and thank the gentlelady from hawaii for managing this bill. i ask for my colleagues' support. having no further speakers, i yield back if there are no speakers over there. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: once again i urge my colleagues to agree to house resolution 1170. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1170. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: on this i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hirono: i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1163. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1163, resolution recognizing

washington state university honors college for 50 years of excellence. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on house resolution 1163 into the record. the chair: without objection. ms. hirono: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i rise today in support of h.res. 1163, which recognizes washington state university honors college for 50 years of excellence. established in 1960 in washington, washington state university honors college is an institution with an enriched

curriculum, small classes, a talented and diverse student body with a wealth of a broad opportunities. the four-year core curriculum is designed to develop each member of the school's academic community to reach his or her full potential. and to lead and serve their local, national, and global communities. the faculty, staff, and students of the honors college create a community of learning the values, creativity, high standards of scholarship, and agreement. it also fosters independent thinking and intellectual risk taking. while valuing engagement and responsibility to community. many of washington state university's high achieving students chose to attend the honors college because of the school's small class sizes and curriculum designed around real life issues. they also seek out the extensive focus on written and/oral presentations and interactive structure of the college's program which allows

students to take ownership for their own learning. members of the honors college student body are also encouraged to spend a portion of their academic years studying abroad and gain proficiency in a second language. during the school's 2008-2009 school year, 34% of the honors college students studied abroad. the school's entering class of fall 2008 had a remarkable 80% of their freshman class study a language other than english during their first semester at college. madam speaker, once again i congratulate washington state university honors college, on 50 years of excellence in education and thank representative mcmorris rodgers for bring this resolution forward. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield such time as she may consume to my friend

and colleague, congresswoman kathy mcmorris rodgers from washington who is the sponsor of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding time on this resolution. i rise in support of h.r. 1163, recognizing washington state university's honor college for 50 years of excellence. nestled in the rolling hills, washington state university in pullman, washington, is the state's largest land grant university and offers over 200 areas of study. this year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the honors college. originally established in 1960 under the direction of professor sidney hacker, the washington state university's honor college provides highly motivated and highly capable students the opportunity challenge themselves. the college emphasizes six

specific learning goals throughout its program, including critical and creative thinking, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, information literacy, communication, self-and society, and disciplinary knowledge. it has produced thousands of entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors, and educators, regardless of the profession or status, a graduate of the college has the choice to make a difference wherever life may lead them. for instance, captain amos peterson of the u.s. army veterinary corps, is a honors college graduate and has been officer in charge of andrew's air force base veterinary clinic since 2008. cap lynn peterson's sister is also -- captain peterson's sister is also an alumnus. after completing service in the u.s. peace corps has become an english teacher in taiwan. these two people are indicative

of the people who graduate from the honors college. the washington state university honors college is one of the most respected in the nation and it is fitting this house applaud its past and most certain future successes. i ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this college for 50 years of excellence. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington -- the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentlewoman from washington -- from hawaii. ms. hirono: does the gentlewoman have any further speakers? mrs. biggert: no, but i would like to close. ms. hirono: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time of the the -- time. the the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: i rise in support of house resolution 116 , recognizing washington state university honors college for 50 years of excellence. for 50 years the washington

state university honors college has offered an enriched liberal arts curriculum with international context undergraduates seeking challenges can optimize their academic experience and known for their accomplishments and undergraduate research, leadership skills, and service to their local, national, and international communities. the honors thesis allows students to develop their own meant your under zpwradquat research product. -- scholarship support is available to help cover college expenses, undergraduate research, and study abroad thanks to the support of the honors alumni and friends. students from any major may follow the honors curriculum and expect to graduate within four years because it works within each student's major. all course work at washington state university honors college is designed to promote the six learning goals of the honors college. washington state university honors college is an

accomplished institution that contributes to the economic and civic vitality of the state, nation, and world. today we congratulate the faculty, staff, students, and alumni for 50 years of excellence. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: once again, i urge my colleagues to vote for h.res. 1163. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remainder of her time. 7. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1163. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- ms. hirono: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: on this i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2377. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house resolution 2377, resolution to direct the secretary of education to establish and administer an awards program recognizing excellence exhibited by public school system employees providing services to students in prekindergarten through higher education. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and the gentlewoman

from illinois, mrs. biggert, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on h.r. 2377 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hirono: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2377, which is a bill that establishes a national classified school employees of the year award. every day in schools across the country, there are people working hard to make sure our students have an opportunity to learn and succeed. classified school employees are critical to this effort. they work as professionals, clerks, custodians, bus drivers, cooks, maintenance employees, nurses, security guards and technicians. the work they do provides essential support to students and teachers, and for far too

long, their contributions have gone unrecognized at a national level. h.r. 2377 will change this and create a national classified school employees of the year award. the award will honor and recognize excellence in the classified schoolworker field. their services are very widely, from establishing and promoting a high-quality instructional environment, as paraeducators, to library aides, and services such as transportation, skilled maintenance, food and support services and health care. i'm sure we can all remember our favorite bus driver who provided our safe arrival to and from school. we can recall the that perfectly bannedaged our scraped knee, or we can reflect on a guidance counselor who helped us navigate the path to college. classified school employees work tirelessly to ensure the success of america's students

and public schools. their dedication ensures the safety and welfare of students while improving the educational atmosphere, helping students meet the highest educational standards. today, we recognize this work and thank them. i ask that you join us in support of this bill. i urge my colleagues to recognize the contributions of classified school employees by voting for h.r. 2377. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i thank you, madam speaker, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: madam speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2377, to direct the secretary of education to establish an administer an awards program recognizing excellence exhibited by public school system employees providing services to students in prekindergarten through higher education.

this will create a recognition program in food, security, health and human services. as you may well know, classified school employees provide the support services necessary to keep our nation's schools open and running on time. these awards will be given annually by the secretary of education. despite the fact that a school support staff is often overlooked, they are an important part of the education team that we entrust our children to each day. these school employees provide transportation services that enables students to safely arrive to and from school, prepare and service the foods to eat each day and keep the school facilities in which students learn clean and safe. those classified school employees who go above and beyond deserve to be recognized and this bill will do just that. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2377 and reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus, the osponsor of this legislation, for as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of house resolution 2377, a bill to establish a national classified school employees of the year award. excuse me. for teachers to teach and students to learn, schools mississippi be well maintained. students must be kept healthy and safe, and all of the adults with whom students interact each day, whether on the playground or in the lunchroom, must support a school's culture of excellence. classified employees help to create and maintain an atmosphere that fosters achievement by working tirelessly to ensure the success of our nation's

students in public schools, colleges and universities. they provide essential services, including transportation, facilities maintenance and operation, food service, safety, health care and others. whether they are in the classroom alongside teachers helping provide a high-quality instructional education or environment, or in a bus making sure that students arrive school on time so they are ready to learn, these classified employees play a vital role in our schools and they should be recognized for the outstanding work that they do. there are approximately 2.8 million education support professionals across the country, yet too often their contributions go unrecognized and that is why i am so pleased to have worked with you, madam speaker, as the lead sponsors of this resolution. a bill that would establish a national classified school employees of the year award.

and i'm proud that this legislation has 57 bipartisan supporters and co-sponsors. this award would be very similar to the teacher of the year award but would recognize outstanding public school employees who provide support services to students from prekindergarten through their education in nine different categories. paraprofessionals, clerical services, custodial and maintenance services, transportation services, food services, skill trade, health and student services, security services and technical services. the secretary of education will solicit nominations from the states in each of these occupational specialties. nominees must demonstrate excellence in work performance, school and community involvement, leadership and commitment, local support, enhancement of classified school employees' image in the

community and in the school, and any other area of superior performance that is determined by the secretary. the award winners would then be recognized by the u.s. secretary of education and the president. let me be clear, this is not a new government program, and honors these special employees will not cost the government any money. nor would this be the first time that government agencies have presented such awards to individuals who make important contributions. both the department of defense and the department of commerce currently give such awards. honoring our classified school employees will provide the recognition and appreciation they deserve, for the important work they do every day on the front lines to help our students succeed. as booker t. washington said, excellence is to do a common thing in an uncommon way. so i urge my colleagues to reward the uncommon excellence of classified school employees by supporting h.r. 2377, and i

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized -- the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentlewoman from illinois is ricked. mrs. biggert: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from honolulu, hawaii. ms. hirono: madam speaker, once again, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2377, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2377. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed,

and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: good afternoon, madam speaker. i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4628. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4628, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 216 westwood avenue in westwood, new jersey, as the sergeant christopher r. hrbek post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert,

each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous materials. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you. madam speaker, as chairman of the house subcommittee over jurisdiction of the united states postal service, i'm proud to present 4628 for consideration. this legislation, when passed, will designate the united states postal service facility located at 216 westwood avenue in westwood, new jersey, as the sergeant christopher hrbek post office building. introduced by my friend and colleague, representative scott garrett, on october 26, 2009, h.r. 4628 was favorably reported out of the oversight and government reform committee

on march 4, 2010, by unanimous consent. in addition, this legislation enjoys the support of the entire house new jersey delegation. a native of westwood, new jersey, sergeant christopher hrbek proudly served our nation as a field artillery cannon air with the second marine division, second marine expeditionary force out of camp lejeune, north carolina. regrettably, sergeant hrbek was killed in action on january 14, 2010, by an improvised explosive device, while supporting operations in helmand province, afghanistan. sergeant hrbek was 26-year-old at the time of his death and on his fourth tour of duty with the united states marine corps. as recalled by his family and friends, sergeant hrbek's enlistment in the united states marine corps evidenced his life-long dedication to serving his community and his country. at the age of 16, sergeant

hrbek, who came from a family of firefighters, joined the westwood fire department as a can at the time and continued to serve his local community as a firefighter for the next nine years. in addition to his dedication to the westwood fire department and town of westwood, sergeant hrbek also inspired to serve in the united states mirment, -- military, and in particular, the united states marine corps. as noted by his loving stepfather, jamie hodges, sergeant hrbek, quote, knew his soul. he wanted to be a marine. and christopher ate, drank and slept the united states marine corps. accordingly, on his 18th birthday, sergeant hrbek asked his stepfather to take him to the that reen recruitment office in new jersey in order to enlist in the marine corps. shortly thereafter, sergeant hrbek left the basic -- left for basic training at paris island, south carolina. sergeant hrbek subsequent and distinguished career in the

united states marine corps included four tours of duty, three tours of duty in iraq in support of operation iraqi freedom, and then most recently, his last tour of duty in afghanistan in support of operation enduring freedom. . in recognition of his service to our nation he's been awarded the purple heart. he has also posthumously received the bronze star with valor device. this was awarded during his heroic service during combat operations several weeks before his death. specifically in december of 2009 in the midst of hostile gunfire, sergeant hrbek rushed to save the life of a fellow marine. sergeant major raymond mackey, who had lost his legs as a result of an improvised explosive device attack. sergeant hrbek and a navy corpsman carried major mackey

to safety and quickly applied tourniquets in order to stop the bleeding. this past christmas eve sergeant hrbek was informed he had been nominated for the bronze star with valor device in recognition of that heroism. in addition to the distinction and honor with which he served in the united states military, sergeant hrbek will be equally remembered for his steadfast devotion to his family and friends. as noted by westwood fire chief, sergeant hrbek, quote, would do anything for anybody. he will be sorely missed and is a huge loss for our community. close quote. while sergeant hrbek is no longer with us, his memory will continue to live on through his devoted family and friends. his loving community, and a dedicated service men and women who are fortunate enough to serve with him. madam speaker, the life of sergeant hrbek stands as a testament to all the brave service men and women who have

offered the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation. let us join with congressman garrett from new jersey in honor of this outstanding soldier and american hero through the passing of this legislation to designate the westwood post office in his name. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 4628. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam speaker. i yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague from new jersey, the sponsor of this bill, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. giret: i thank the -- mr. garrett: i thank the gentlelady and chair. i rise today in honor of sergeant christopher richard hrbek, a recently fallen marine. it was on january 14 in 2010 when sergeant hrbek gave his life in service for this our

country and today we have the opportunity to pay tribute to sergeant hrbek by considering h.r. 4628. this legislation that will rename the post office up in westwood, new jersey, in his honor. in addition, though, to paying tribute to sergeant hrbek, i would like to pause for a moment to recognize his family as well for the sacrifice that they now have endured on behalf of our nation. chris is survived by his wife, jamie, lynn, his mother and stepfather, cheryl and james. his father and stepmother, richard and gale hrbek. his two sisters, amy and lori, and his two step brothers, jim and beau. as was pointed out sergeant hrbek was not only a hero in the armed services, he was a hero back in his hometown as well. chris was born and raised up in westwood, new jersey, and as stated at the age of 16 he along with a couple of his

friends became cadets in their westwood fire department. as an aside i remember going at the funeral and hearing the stories that they told even before they were 16. just pretending to be firemen and the like. always wanting to be a fireman when they grew up. at age 16 they were able to put that into action and weekend forecast cadets in the westwood fire department. chris saw every opportunity to serve as a chance to shine. this is why he was no surprise when he enlisted in the u.s. marines in 2003. as a marine sergeant hrbek served four tours of duty which included two combat tours in iraq and afghanistan. but it was indeed on december 23, 2009, when they were under heavy enemy fire, that he saved the life and it was of his own, sergeant major, sergeant major raymond mackey. as it was recounted later on to his family, chris had been out on a patrol at that time when he heard an explosion about 10 paces behind him. chris turned to see what it was and saw sergeant major mackey

badly wounded by the explosion. so what did he do? he immediately turned his attention to mackey, applying seven turn kits and saving the sergeant major's life. he did this all under attack at the time. this is truly a definition of grace under fire. and for his valiant efforts, chris earned a brozz star with a combat v. however chris was not able to ever receive that medal in person. it was on january 14 that sergeant chris hrbek was killed on patrol in afghanistan. after he encountered an i.e.d. hrbek's family posthumously accepted the bronze star on behalf of his life at his funeral. a letter was issued to his parents from the marine corps and i think it really captured the sentiment that i all know america shares. it said, by the initiative,

courageous actions and exceptional dedication to duty, sergeant hrbek reflected great credit upon himself and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the marine corps and united states naval service. after chris died in combat, he received a heroes welcome back in his hometown in westwood, new jersey. it was on january 20th of this year that his flag draped coffin passed through the streets of westwood. which were lined as far as you could see with flags and residents and students all coming out who stood proudly, side by side, in a mass of people to pay tribute to this young man. joining the processions were the marines from camp lejeune who did serve alongside him. one of the marines was sergeant ryan harsman. he noted, when chris walked into a room, everyone knew that he was there. he just had that presence. he never ran out of fuel. the new york fire department

also honored chris and this month bestowed the title of honorary firefighter because sergeant hrbek had accepted -- had been accepted to begin training with the fire department over in nork city, but he deferred his enrollment twice so that he could continue his service to the u.s. marines. sergeant hrbek set the highest examples of someone who is willing to risk his life to safe -- save the life of others. i'm proud to be the sponsor of h.r. 4628, honoring the life of sergeant hrbek. as i with my colleague join all my colleagues here to support this legislation memorializing chris and his service to his hometown of westwood, new jersey, where christopher hrbek will forever be remembered as a hero, as a heroic marine, loving husband, a son, and a brother as well. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: madam speaker, we have no further speakers on this. i continue to reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: thank you. let me just say that sergeant christopher hrbek died preserving the lives of his fellow soldiers and the freedom of this nation. i urge that we support this bill to honor that spirit of sacrifice of a true hero embodied by sergeant hrbek. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i ask all members on both sides of the aisle to join with mr. garret -- garrett in honoring this round young marine and supporting h.r. 4628. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remader of his time. the -- remainder of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4628.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 267. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 267. resolution recognizing the

cultural and historical significance of nowruz, expressing appreciation to iranian americans for their contributions to society, and wishing iranian americans and the people of iran a prosperous new year. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: madam speaker, on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform, i present house resolution 267 for consideration. this legislation recognizes the cultural and historical significance of the traditional iranian holiday of nowruz,

expresses our appreciation for the contributions of iranian americans and to the united states and wishes all iranian americans as well as the people of iran a prosperous new year. this resolution has been offered by my friend and colleague, representative mike honda of california. because he is the lead sponsor of this resolution, i am going to yield to him such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank my good friend and colleague, mr. lynch from massachusetts, for yielding me time. madam speaker, i rise today in support of my resolution, h.r. 267 of the iranian american community. last year i introduced this resolution which honors the iranian new year, or nowruz. this resolution recognizes the cultural and historic significance of nowruz. expresses appreciation for the

contributions of iranian americans to society and wishes iranian americans and the people of iran a prosperous new year. nowruz will occur on march 21 of this year and translates as a new day, or the first day of spring. this ancient holiday is rooted back to the ancestors of modern iran and is celebrated over the first 13 days of spring. iranian american constituents of mine tell me it is a favorite time of year when families get together, picnic at a park, and celebrate the coming of spring and the new year. many iranian americans also take the time to visit friends and contribute to local charities during this holiday. nowruz is not just celebrated by iranians or iranian americans, it is celebrated by over 300 million people across this world and over one million iranian americans in our country.

that is what intrigues me about this holiday. nowruz festivities bring people together from all walks of life not just iranians. to join and celebrate as a community. this ancient holiday has survived centuries of religious differences and political rivalries and is celebrated by diverse group of people from different religions and -- religious and ethnic background. iranian americans have made noteworthy and lasting contributions in all sectors of americans public life including as government, military law enforcement officials, and in the field of medicine, engineering, and business. i am proud to represent these civically engaged iranian american community in my silicon valley district who continue to teach all of us about the rich and cultural history. i have had the opportunity and meeting for dialogues over the years and witnessed firsthand their contributions to our society. madam speaker, i am proud to

stand on the house floor today to recognize and honor the exceptional ways in which the iranian american community enriches our nation's diversity. i wish our iranian american community and all those who celebrate nowruz, a prosperous new year. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from massachusetts verve the balance of his time? mr. lynch: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. biggert: madam speaker, i rise in -- today in support of house resolution 267, and join my colleague from california, mr. honda, in expressing appreciation to iranian americans for their contributions to society and wishing the people of iran a prosperous new year. nowruz, meaning new day, marks the beginning of spring and is

celebrated by over 300 million people worldwide. originated in ancient peshia, it's not limited to -- persia, it is not limited to any ethnicity, religion and creed and commemorates the values of nowruz. they decorate a table called the seven services' with items that similar bowlizes -- symbolizes nowruz. in congratulating iranian americans and iranians throughout the world on this moment us holiday, i think it's important to acknowledge the many significant contributions of these fellow citizens and neighbors to the framework of our great nation. an iranian philosopher believes that its everyone's duty to be useful in society and play such important service to society that he considered it to be the

true meaning of altruism. iranians americans -- iranian americans continue this principle by their contributions to this nation, from science and technology, to commerce and trade, to academia and medicine, to music and arts, iranian americans continue to enrich the fabric of american society. madam speaker, i hope our colleagues will join in recognizing this holiday by strengthening the ties of mutual respect with one another chilly advancing a harmonious exchange -- in celebrating the significance of nowruz. if there are no other speakers i'll yield back the balance of my-time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remainder of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i have no further speakers on this matter but i ask all

members on both sides of the aisle to join mr. honda, the principle sponsor of this resolution, and support h.r. 267. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the remainder of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 267. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. lynch: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: madam speaker, i request the call of the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 12 of rule 1 -- pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chai >> we provide people a to where

they can find anything on line. >> that is tonight on c-span2. >> our public affairs content is available on television, radio and on line. you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and you do. signup for our schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. >> we're going live to the house budget committee, expected to begin its work making changes to the original senate health care bill passed last december. it is being used as a way to avoid a senate filibuster of health care measures. the chairman is in the room and a we're waiting for the meeting to begin.

some

>> the health care reconciliation markup is expected to begin shortly. under reconciliation roles, the bill could be passed in the

senate with a simple majority vote. provisions must meet specific budget requirements. some of the major provisions include a reduction in taxes on high value insurance policies, more medicaid funding for states, additional subsidies for the uninsured. we continue to carry this live on c-span until 6:30 when the house comes back into vote. but if everyone will take his or her seat, we will begin the meeting today.

the budget committee meets today in a ministerial role, that is part of a larger process of deciding how we share the cost of being sick in our society. our task is to report on the recommendations submitted to the committee under the reconciliation directions for fiscal year 2010. our role in the process stems from the reconciliation directives in section 2 02, dealing with -- a section 202, dealing with health care reform. it requires that the spending and revenue changes made for health care reform and education reform not just the deficit- neutral, but actually improve the deficit. we have described that principle. the budget act, as signed by our committee, the role of packaging

the reconciliation bill, and transmitting to the house " without substantive change" -- we have the authority to make such changes and report as amended to the floor. i will briefly describe our purpose and then make an opening statement limited to 10 minutes, followed by an opening statement limited to 10 minutes by the ranking member senator bryan. this will be included in the record at this point. we will take a motion to report to the house the recommendations and to us by the committees in response to the reconciliation instructions that i decided. this will move to consideration of a maximum 10 motions on each side, all non-binding. we must finish by midnight tonight or turn into pumpkins. these motions request that the chairman of the committee go to the rules committee and ask that

certain amendments be made in order i'll outline that process in greater detail. i remind all members that he is authorized to declare a recess at any time, based on the decision we made at an earlier meeting this year. i am now on the 10-minute clock. the budget act calls for this committee to combine the legislative legit -- language center was in october in response to reconciliation regulations that were passed last year. we will report a product of the house by way of the rules committee. the budget act bars as from amending the bill. we were told to a somewhat and submit it without substantive change or told -- >> we were told to amend it and submit it without substantive change. we deal not only with health care reform, but also with higher education varied the budget committee cannot amend

the language that has been sent to us. the house of representatives can amend it and intends to do so. any reconciliation package that the house passes and sends will look very different than what is before the committee today. we're taking the next up in a long, arduous process. critics may suggest the process is moving too fast. congress has been concern -- considering were forming an expanding health care coverage for more than one year. we of held hundreds of hours of hearings and heard from hundreds of witnesses -- democrats and republicans. during them -- during the markups, three committees have held them. we of considered 239 amendments from democrats -- we have considered to under 39 eminence from both democrats and republicans. -- 239 -- 239 amendments from democrats and republicans.

we have the best medical system in the world. we also have the world's most expensive system. each member here has told a tale about what is wrong, right, and needs to be fixed. no one will dispute that health care is increasingly affordable, especially for millions who lack insurance, and rising costs. in household and business budgets, and in the federal budget as well. high premiums are putting health insurance out of reach for more and more americans. even those with insurance have no ironclad guarantees of protection. lifetime caps in the sick with astronomical bills, even if they have insurance. they may not have the coverage they need. it may be due to pre-existing conditions.

the bill is -- it is clear that the provisions will uphold the provisions of the majority. for starters, we need underwriting reform. we need to restrict the denial of coverage for pre-existing editions and the raising of premiums when the insured suffers a major illness. we need a more competitive marketplace for insurance where consumers benefit from choice and competition. we need affordability for individuals and small businesses. fourth, we need to close the doughnut hole by eliminating over payments to medicare advantage. we need payment reform to encourage doctors, hospitals, and other providers to provide quality of care, rather than quantity. these needs are addressed in the

comprehensive bill coming before the house. everybody's perspective on why perform is needed -- let me state this for my own sake. according to statistics, in my state, south carolina, 764,000 residents car and lack health insurance, to 90,000 -- residents currently lack health insurance. 127,000 seniors would have their premiums cut in half. hundreds of thousands of small businesses would be held by small business tax credit. they make up about 3/4 of all businesses in south carolina, but only 40% are able to offer health coverage. we're also considering that reconciliation was not intended for this purpose. reconciliation has been used 22 times in prior years. and many of those occasions,

republicans were in the majority. in 2001, our republican colleagues used birth reconciliation -- used reconciliation to pass tax cuts. in 2003, the second round of tax cuts using reconciliation added $350 billion to the deficit. by contrast, the clinton administration used reconciliation in 1993 and the deficit was reduced by $496 billion over five years. when reconciliation was used in the balance-budget act of the 1970's seven -- it created medpac and medicare advantage. what we do today lies well within the president -- precedents. the legislative text before us today also includes higher education, student loans, pell grant provisions. if the house passes the

provisions in the reconciliation bill that we will take up later this week, it will result in landmark investment in higher education, making it more affordable and accessible. it will do so without adding to the deficit. a productive economy requires in the man's education to be accessible, affordable, -- the man's education be accessible, affordable, and -- demands education be accessible and affordable. in taking the next step, we begin the process of bringing to a fruitful conclusion our work on these vital issues. i now recognize the ranking member mr. ryan for his opening statement. >> thank you for continuing this committee's tradition, allow a full debate. -- allowing a full

debate. you have always been a gentleman. thank you for continuing to be one. today, in this committee, we begin what might be the final chapter of this health care debacle. my friends and the majority came -- claim that we're paving the way to fix a mildly-plot senate bill. they argue that it is a frequently-used procedure. that is not what is happening here and we all know it. this is, in fact, an extraordinary and unprecedented abuse of the budget reconciliation process. reconciliation has never been used -- never -- to push through a $1.30 trillion expansion of government. it has not been used to seize control of one's last bit of the u.s. economy. -- 1/5 of the u.s. economy. we are facing a $1.50 trillion

budget deficit this year alone. doing it on a deliberate, purely party-line vote. the only by partisanship in this procedure is in the opposition to it. -- the only bipartisanship in this procedure is in the opposition to it. the legislation is irrelevant. even before we vote on them. we report the presence here, as the process requires, and it will be stripped out, discarded, and then the real legislation will get written under the cover of the rules committee. in other words, we're right here creating a legislative trojan horse, in which a handful of people will reshape how all americans receive and pay for their health care. it will then be rushed to the floor and members will be forced to vote on to meet another --

vote on it, to meet another artificial deadline. it appears that you're going to deem passage of the senate bill in the rule. lastly, espy's -- last week, speaker pelosi said dick that we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it -- last week, speaker pelosi, "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in that." the condescension to the american people is just breathtaking. this is not just a simple fix certification build. this is the linchpin for health care. -- this is not just a simple fixer bill. to put it another way, it is process fails, the whole health your house of cards collapses.

of course, the real reason we're sitting here today is because of one man -- scott brown. we're here because scott brown won his election and got elected to the united states senate -- sent there by the people of massachusetts. you cannot pass this health care bill the right way, and so now you past the washington way. we are not governing here today. we are greasing the skids for an abuse of the budget procedure, intended to control the size of government, not expand it. this goes beyond the details of the legislative process and the integrity of our constitutional duties. let's consider the underlying health care legislation. using the president's proposal, because it is built upon the same philosophy as the house and self -- house and senate health care bills -- the most fundamental problem is that this is not about health care. at the base, it is about ideology. it moves away from the american idea and toward a european-style welfare state that will leave

millions of americans becoming more dependent on the government, rather than upon themselves. even the wood is not a single- payer, and even -- even though it is not single-payer, it is still a government takeover of health care. the entire electorate -- the entire architecture is designed to give the federal government control over what kind of insurance is available, how much is enough, and which treatments are worth paying for. hat everything is connected to everything else. you can guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions on if you have healthy people in the insurance pool to spread costs. you can only do that by requiring everybody to buy health insurance. we can do that only if you subsidize people. would you hand out subsidies, you have to impose artificial limits that -- once you hand out subsidies, you have to impose artificial limits that strip powers from patients and doctors. it creates an authority that is

out washington price-setting board. -- it creates an authority that is a washington price-setting board. it empowers washington didnto decide what kind of health insurance will be available. it creates a new health care advisory committee -- an unelected group of federal bureaucrats. it gives the u.s. preventive services task force new powers to further limit patient choice, allowing the secretary to unilaterally decide payment. it empowers the comparative effectiveness board, created by last year's demille as bill, that will restrict provided decisions about what treatments are best for their patients -- greeted by last year's stimulus -- created by last year's

stimulus bill, that will restrict provider decisions about what treatments are best for their patients. we work with cbo every day. they are great people. they are professional and they do their work very well. let us be very clear, their job is to score was placed in front of them. the authors of the bill had gained at the system themselves, writing the smoke and mirrors right into the bill. when you strip away the gimmicks, the double-counting and that all the assumptions, it is clear that this overhaul does not reduce the deficit and does not contain costs. this charade, both the days blind markup and the entire past year of debate, is dispiriting in so many ways. there are real problems that need to be fixed in health care. we could have done so in a bipartisan way. that is the shame of all of this.

we agreed on the key problems and agreed that real reform is needed. skyrocketing health care costs are driving families, businesses, and government to the brink of bankruptcy, leaving millions of people without adequate coverage. we agree on the need to address pre-existing conditions, realign the incentives of insurance companies with patients and doctors and root out waste, fraud, and abuse. we agree on the problems, and even rhetorically, on many of the same goals. yet the past 12 months have crystallized the differences in approaching health care. it did not have to be this way. it does not have to stay this way. at the blair house summit, vice president biden claimed that we're not qualified to speak on behalf of the american people. i respectfully disagreed then and i respectfully disagree now. where representatives of the american people. we communicate everyday with those we serve. it is clear they are engaged. the people we represent, and i suspect most of us here, passionately believe we need to

fix what is broken in health care. i do not believe this is the way to do it. the abuse of the legislative process, the constitution -- a massive government takeover of health care in america -- this process is not worthy of your support or your vote. let's start fresh and work seriously to address this issue. let's do it together. mr. chairman, before we move on, i would ask for the requisite 40 hours to submit. >> so ordered. section 310 of the congressional budget act of 1974, we will continue to report to the house without any substantive provisions. the process means that consideration of the amendment of the bill is greeted by law and any motions would be ruled out of order. i recognize the gentleman from

pennsylvania, are vice chair, for a motion -- our vice chair, for a motion. >> i ordered that we -- >> the question comes on the ordering of the reconciliation act of 2010 to be reported to the house without recommendation. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those not in favor say no. >> no. >> in my opinion, the ayes have it.

>> mr. laurel. mr. edwards. mr. scott. mr. landis and. mr. larsen. mr. bishop. miss more. -- miss moore. mr. schrader. mr. moore. mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling. mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart. mr. simpson. mr. mchenry.

mr. campbell. mr. jordan. ms. lamas. mr. aderholt. mr. nunez. mr. harper. mr. spratt. >> aye. >> mr. ryan. >> no. >> mr. ryan, no. >> are there members who wish to record their votes who have not voted, or change their votes? if not, the clerk will report the votes. >> mr. chairman, the ayes are

21, the no's, 16. >> the motion is agreed to and the reconciliation act of 2010 will be reported to the house without recommendation. i would note for the record that a quorum is present. without objection, the question of reconciliation is laid on the table. the request is noted for the record did i recognize that the gentleman from pennsylvania for another request. >> ask unanimous consent with respect to the reconciliation that the chair be authorized to offer such motions in the house as may be necessary on the reconciliation act of 2010. this is pursuant to clause 1 of house rule 22. that this gap be authorized to make any necessary technical or conforming corrections parts -- that the staff be authorized to make any necessary technical or conforming corrections. >> without objection, it is so

ordered. >> this concludes the procedural portion of the market as report of the 1974 budget act. the committee has reported the reconciliation bill to that house without revision. we now turn to the consideration of motions or recommendations. we request that certain amendments be made in order. we must conclude this portion of the meeting before midnight tonight. that is our mandate and we intend to keep it. within that limitation, each side will be offered to allow a maximum of 10 non-binding motions. as i have said, we must finish before midnight tonight. by agreement with the minority,

times of the limited to 20 minutes with the time equally divided between the proponents and the member in opposition. when each member complete his or her opening statement, the member has the right to reserve a minute to close or rejoin. who seeks recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the ranking member . we recognize the importance of today's market and the gravity to which the decisions are being made today. no one is new to the arguments and debates that have been made. the ranking member and the chairmen have done a great job of outlining what is before us

and what the debate is. the american people understand and recognize what it is that congress is about to do. the first motion to instruct would prohibit the use of comparative effectiveness research or other measures to restrict medical professionals from providing and/or providing the care they believe to be medically necessary. i think this really goes to the core of a lot of the frustration that you are feeling or are hearing from the american people. the american people want the relationship between themselves and their doctor to be preserved. they do not want to see the federal government -- bureaucrats and politicians -- making decisions that would have a negative impact on themselves and their families and their lives. the idea that somehow a bureaucrat or politician knows what is best for a patient is absurd.

what we're saying is -- let's preserve that relationship -- that doctor-patient relationship. let's think about this. if i may, i will give you a little family story here. i had an uncle who passed away of cancer at a very early age. it was his doctors that really provided the care. it was a family meeting with the doctors were we could talk about what was best for him and how to get through his -- where we could talk about what was best for him and how to get through his illness, what medicine -- it was very personal. later on down the line, my grandfather died of cancer. again, it was that relationship between my grandfather, our family, and the doctor that helped set a course that we used

to try to fight cancer and win -- tried to extend his life. later on, my mother got breast cancer and she survived. again, it was that relationship with her doctor through which she was able to -talk to the doctor about what the best course of action was. imagine if, somehow, there was a washington bureaucrat or politician that was in the mix. that is the last thing in our mind when my mother was biting her breast cancer -- fighting her breast cancer. the idea that government would control what kind of procedure should have, what medicines should have, what the proper course of action was. it was the doctor's and my mother, and our family who made those decisions. later, my father ended up with

melanoma -- he survived. he survived because of the relationship between my father, our family, and his doctor. later on, my sister got cancer. it was that relationship between the doctor, my sister, and our family -- not a washington bureaucrat or politician -- that made those decisions. the american people are saying clearly -- hands off, we do not what you involved in our health care decisions. this is a very personal decision for many people. lastly, i would like to say this -- i have a young daughter and son. as they grow older, what will help them through their challenges in medicine is going

to be the relationship between the doctor and them. if we do not move forward with this motion to instruct, i am afraid it is going to beat the washington bureaucrats, government -- be the washington government and bureaucrats that will decide the care of my children and your children. the american people have clearly said they do not want government to be involved in the decisions being made on their health care. they want to preserve that for the doctor, themselves, and -- for the doctor and themselves. this is an important motion and goes to the heart of the frustration and fears of the american people. i would hope that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of this and will support this motion to instruct. at this time, i would like to

ask my colleague if he would like to make some comments. >> thank you for yielding. thank you for offering this motion that is very important. let me emphasize that there are certain things in the bill that empower us. [inaudible] i want to focus on the language in the stimulus bill and the direction we're going with it. [inaudible] -- prevent control and treat health conditions will be utilized. those that are found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive will no longer be prescribed.

in this healthcare plan -- this health care plan empowers comparative effectiveness and creates new broker sees. -- new bureaucracies. i also want to share a story. my father was a doctor and my mother was a nurse. i had a brother who was a doctor and a sister who was a doctor, and a sister who was a nurse. i come from a big family with a lot of health care professionals. we grew up in a typical small town. my father had that same relationship that the gentleman from florida talked about -- with every one of these patients. he went to church with them. he cared for the well-being. he trusted them. when he made a recommendation on care that they needed, it was because that was the care that that individual required, not because it was statistically geber on sun -- cheaper on some

government scale. we need to reform health care reform while preserving the doctor-patient relationship with common-sense reforms that give individuals maximum control over their health care decisions, not more government interference. if this bill limits an individual's rights to choose their own health care provider or coverage for limits a patient's right to choose their own doctor and whatever treatment that patient or doctor chooses for themselves or their families, it is wrong. this motion to instruct will insure -- ensure that even that there are uncertainties that is 1000-page bill will preserve the doctor-patient relationship. i would yield back to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. we will wait to close. but you want me to close?

take the last 46 seconds. the motion to instruct -- the architecture is that the government is becoming the dominant player in health care under this legislation. the only way to contain costs under this kind of policy is too deeply and systematically ration care. that is why these bureaucracies are being put in place. we read about this in canada. it my mother-in-law, who is fighting stage 3 ovarian cancer, could not have gotten the drug she gets now, she would not be with us today. if she was a british citizen, she could not it. that is why we oppose this. >> i recognize the opposition, mr. bishop. >> mr. chairman >> thank you very much. let me -- mr. chairman, thank you very much. let me thank you for allowing us

to have that back-based discussion that the american people -- fact-based discussion that the american people deserve. nothing in this legislation tells the doctor how to practice medicine. there is no provision in the bill that gives the government the ability to determine which treatment an individual can receive. let me quote from the house bill under the comparative effectiveness research -- nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the mandate of any policies for public or private paris. nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine. that is pretty clear. next page -- research may not be used to deny or ration care. that is pretty clear. the senate bill -- in their comparative effectiveness

research. compared -- comparative effectiveness research shall not be construed as a mandate for practice guidelines, coverage recommendations, pennant, or policy recommendations. there is nothing that cahas been suggested in the language before us that would allow for this sort of nightmare scenarios envision by the legislation. let me say a couple of other things. comparative effectiveness research has been -- has had bipartisan support until this year. the 2003 medicare modernization act, written by a republican- controlled house and republican- controlled senate, and passed with largely republican votes, record the department of health and human services to conduct research on, "outcomes of comparative critical research -- clinical effectiveness would wreck president bush supported

comparative effectiveness research. -- clinical effectiveness. president bush supported comparative effectiveness research in 2008 and 2009. we have a long history of supporting comparative effectiveness research. the ama has endorsed it. let me tell my own anecdote. this july, i received a phone call from a cardiologists in my home town -- a guy that has practiced for 30 years, he needed my help with dennis urines company -- needed my help with an insurance company. the man had gone to the emergency room complaining of chest pains, and was sent home after an ekg. he came back later in the week,

still experiencing chest pains. the cardiologist thought with the insurance company for five weeks, seeking approval for the necessary procedure. he called me and asked me if i would please intercede with the president of the insurance company to get the insurance company to acquiesce and provide the coverage. we have a government-provided health insurance program in this country -- medicare. if that had been a 75-year-old patient complaining of the exact same sentence, that cardiologist would have offered the test and the test would of been approved in a heartbeat -- no pun intended. we envision a fiscal year in which we're returning control of health care decisions to where they belong -- patients and

physicians, not with the bureaucrats to administer health care companies, with their principal focus being maximization of profit, not protection of patience. i yield. >> i thank my colleague. [inaudible] >> this one sounds ok. i am in opposition to the motion. i think it seeks to frighten and mislead the american people. our republican colleagues choose to attack health care quality research out of one side of their mouth while they defend them out of the other side of their mouth. comparative effectiveness research is not at the core of

this. imagine being told that your doctor things you need surgery for cancer or another condition, and then your insurance company says they do not cover that procedure, or you have a lifetime cap, you cannot afford that. or, you get into an awful car accident and are told that your insurance company is dropping you because you failed to disclose an unrelated illness years ago. i did not make those stories up. that really happened to a former preschool teacher and mother of four children in colorado. our plan sets new common-sense rules for insurance companies to protect consumers from these abuses. my colleague and i were pleased to hear -- i was pleased to hear from my colleague because the insurance company's insurance is one reason i introduced the breast cancer patient protection act several years ago. i was joined by our republican

colleague bill burton and i want to applaud you, mr. mack, as a co-sponsor. we of heard countless stories from women who have been kicked out of hospital -- we have heard countless stories from women who have been kicked out of hospitals after surgery at when they are not yet ready to go home, either physically or psychologically. that bill passed in the house with bipartisan support -- 421 to 2. the insurance companies killed it on the senate side. we cannot be in the position of green -- agreeing to set of basic rules for mastectomies and not want to help other people. that is why we want to move forward. there is nothing in this bill -- nothing that would get in the way of the patient-doctor

relationship. what gets in the wake of the patient-doctor relationship are insurance companies -- the way of the patient-doctor relationship are insurance companies. my colleagues should support health care and be opposed to this motion. i would yield now to our colleague. >> i thank you. i am a philadelphia-area baseball fan. your family has done an awful lot for philadelphia-area baseball. none of us are here who would not want their relatives to get the care they need. that is why the bill expressly states that comparative effectiveness research cannot be used to set reimbursement rates under medicare. comparative effectiveness research is really about the best minds in health care and medicine research coming together to figure out what works.

they then encourage people to use what works. there is not a word -- not one word in this legislation that would permit anybody to decide care because of it. i want to join what ms. del oro says. there is rationing of health care in america. the companies decide it would rather fought -- fatten their bottom line. we have all called them to talk about these problems. members of congress should not have to make phone calls to president of insurance companies to ask them to provide chemotherapy or heart surgery for people who have paid their health care premiums. one purpose of this underlying legislation is to make sure that does not happen. this is not a government takeover of health care, it is a consumer takeover that is long overdue. i yield back to my friend, mr. bishop. >> thank you for yielding. i yield 30 seconds to ms.

mccollum and to ms. kaptur. [inaudible] >> we know that insurance companies are the ones interfering right now. the american medical association and many others have endorsed comparative effectiveness research. i yield back. >> yielding back to ms. kaptur. >> we will show you a chart of what the insurance companies do with the money they take by denial of care. it is unbelievable that companies like wellcare -- their seal makes more than $23 million a year. -- ceo makes more than $23 million a year. cigna, over $12 million a year. this does not count the stock options they have pared the are taking people -- they're taking

money from the american people and denying them care. we want coverage just like congress gets -- private coverage for all american people. >> mr. mack, one minute to close. >> i feel sorry for you, because you have to make an argument that does not make sense. on one hand, you're saying you want to preserve the doctor- patient relationship. on the other, you have things that you support that will destroy that. if i can remind you about the u.s. prevent services = -- u.s. prevented services task force -- preventive services task force, let me tell you another story about a friend who has cancer if she was unable -- who has cancer. if she had not been able to get

mammograms, who knows where she and her children would be today? to sit there and say you want to preserve that doctor-patient relationship and then on the other hand, somehow say you're not going to support the motion to instruct -- again, i feel sorry for you sp. i know you are feeling a lot of pressure, but the americans -- it is true -- the american people know what this bill is. even though the president said in his stated the union that maybe the american people have an -- maybe the american people have not understood -- >> members, please support this motion to instruct. >> i beg your pardon. all those in favor of the mack amendment say iaye. those opposed say no. >> the nos have it.

>> the clerk will call the roll. no. >> no. >> know. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> aye. >> mr. ryan, aye. mr. hensarling. mr. garrett. mr. diaz-balart. mr. simpson. mr. mchenry, aye. mr. mack, aye. mr. campbell, aye. mr. jordan, aye. ms. lamas, aye. mr. aderholt, aye. mr. nunez, aye. mr. harper, aye. aye. no. >> are there additional members who wish to be reported to have not yet been recorded? does anyone wish to change? if not, the clerk will announce

the vote. >> mr. chairman, on that the bank, the ayes are 14, the no's 23. >> the motion is not agreed to. are there additional motions? you're recognized. >> thank you. i have a motion to instruct. this is a particularly important motion -- there will be a number of them. there are so many aspects of the health care reform the legislation that we are moving forward. when most common sense understandable -- one of the most common sense, understand the issue is that there will be new rules for insurance companies that will create protections for americans in being able to assure that they

can buy affordable means of coverage. it is a major issue for americans when someone in their family has a pre-existing condition. they have been yet unable to buy insurance coverage that is affordable, or unable to buy any insurance for that particular problem. two quick stories, if i may. one constituent called my office -- recently unemployed. her son had hemophilia. her husband was self-employed. they went to get insurance for their families. they could not find insurance coverage that would cover the hemophilia that their son had appeared there were faced with devastating high-costs, on the fear that their son would not be able to get the health coverage they needed. this legislation would end that practice, starting almost immediately.

insurance companies would no longer be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. all children in this country will be protected and able to get insurance coverage that they need, and that their family is trying to provide for them. another quick story -- a six- month-old baby with jaundice was put under the lights. when his parents apply for insurance, it would not give -- they would not give him insurance because he was susceptible to liver disease possibly in his 70's -- to deny coverage to a six-month-old. this is unacceptable. americans cannot find affordable health insurance. the health legislation we're putting forward will begin the process of ending that practice

and enable all americans to buy health insurance that covers pre-existing conditions for themselves and their families. i am proud to be able to offer this amendment. i do want to ask a couple of my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. i would also like to give to commit to mr. blumenauer. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your courtesy. i appreciate your bringing it forward. this is an example of the disconnect between some of our well-intended rhetoric and reality that is faced by the american public. this notion about being concerned about government bureaucrats coming between people and their health care. as you and others have pointed out already, this is happening every day. only, there are not the government agencies with the rules of the road that have been established through a democratic process -- these are what have taken place within the insurance

industry itself. nowhere is this more insidious than when it deals with pre- existing conditions. members of congress can tick off the numbers of our colleagues -- i got to over 100 -- who would be uninsurable, but for a government insurance that we get, like every other federal employee -- people with heart problems, cancer, multiple sclerosis -- you can go through the list of our colleagues who would not be able to have insurance. they would be more eager, frankly, to be concerned about health care reform on the other side of the aisle if they faced the problems that our constituents face. our friends have offered up an idea -- the sort of understand we need to do something about pre-existing conditions, but the talk about some sort of transitional, high-risk pool. 2/3 of the states have high-risk pools now.

they cover only a couple of hundred thousand people. it is inordinately expensive. it is not a solution. it is a dodge. i strongly urge the approval of this motion in yield back to my colleague from pennsylvania. thank you very much. >> thank you and thank you for your comments. on behalf of the american people, i would ask you to lend your comments on this for to commence. -- for two minutes. .

and to think how outrageous it is to have an insurer not qualify you for help where -- for health care because you're the victim of domestic violence -- this is outrageous and one of the most despicable practices that the government takeover of health insurance reform will amend. thank god we're taking over this particular section of insurance coverage. i yield back. >> @ add -- i add the problems that we have been buying affordable coverage in the

marketplace. it was a fair shot at being able to find affordable coverage in the private marketplace. there will be new common sense rules of the road. it is about time that americans are able to for affordable means of coverage for their families. every day that we do not do this, it means that some of our sick children, some of our sick adults, some of us who just want to take care of ourselves and prevent these is from getting worse who do not get the care that they need, they do not go to the doctor because they will not be able to afford to, because they cannot afford to pay for it. they are calling on us to do something to make sure that they can buy affordable, meaningful coverage and had -- and having preexisting conditions in your family has made it nearly

impossible to find coverage. people -- we need to alleviate that sense of insecurity that so many people have. so many families knows someone who works with us for ourselves that have this situation. they worry about losing a job, worried about not getting the health care coverage that we need, and this moves us forward today on this problem for so many americans and for all of us. and i ask for unanimous consent which would be very rice -- very nice for this motion to instruct. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think this is something that the american people agree on. let's have a reality check.

in order to deal with this issue, you do not need a 2000- page monstrosity. there is agreement on this issue. having preexisting conditions should not prevent want to have access to quality health care. we understand that and agree on that. and by the way, there are other reforms that my people support and that we can agree on, but it does not require a 2000-page government takeover of health care to accomplish this issue and other things that the american people want. the alternative offered back in november would have actually done that without a 2000-page bill and done so sooner. and this proposal does not even begin until 2014. the republican plan would have kicked and immediately.

we can have some small details about tweaking it here or there, but let's be straight forward and honest with the american people. it does not require 2000 pages were massive tax increases, it does not require all of this monstrosity in order to deal with the fact that there are people that have preexisting conditions that should have access to quality health care, that we all agree on. although while ago i heard the statement that this was not a dodge. this is not a solution. this is the parasite-infected wet, smelly dog. we do not need that in order to deal with the issues that the american people agree on. this is one of the issues that we can agree on and we would

hope that we can step back, take a deep breath, listen to the american people, and get the things done that we need to do and deal with preexisting conditions without imposing this huge bill that the american people do not want and cannot afford, that will cause a lot more damage than good. and with that, i would like to yield some time to mr. aderholt. >> mr. chairman? >> first of all, let me stress again that this is an important issue, a bipartisan issue. the truth that the matter is that the republicans included this provision in their alternative. again, as my colleagues have pointed out, the democratic senate bill does not demonstrate and -- in discrimination until the end -- until the year 2014.

the republican bill would demand that it come into effect immediately. this is another example of how the majority has used back debt -- back toward deals. the republican support ending discrimination based on pre- existing conditions immediately. unfortunately, under the democratic bill, if you have a preexisting condition, you will have a difficult time finding health insurance between now and the year 2014. under the republican plan, discrimination against once the bill signed into law by the president. republicans have proposed several reforms to the insurance industry, such as not allowing insurers to take away your insurance. but we have all been blocked out of the health care discussions that have moved forward. unfortunately, this bill is about democratic priorities and partisan ideologies. health reform should not be a partisan issue. it should be something that we should move forward and

together -- and one of the solutions is to end discrimination based on pre- existing conditions now, not in 2014. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? [unintelligible] the bill that the republicans submitted many months ago stars right away. this does not begin until 2014. we do not object to this. what we object to is using at 2000-page the vehicle -- 82000 a 2000-page vehicle when we can do this and very little time if the majority just wanted to get out of this back room, smoke- filled, and private meetings and

if they were willing to go to the public and do it in the sunshine. we could pass a bill in a matter of days if we did this without creating a purchase some 2000- page monstrosity that we're about to ram down the throats of the american people. with that, i yield back. >> you have one minute to close. >> i thank the chairman. it's hard to figure out how to start on this in one minute, most of the debates and votes have been on the air. the legislation is fairly long and complicated, but this is important. sometimes something important -- we would always hope for republican cooperation. but the republican alternative says that those with pre-

existing conditions would go with high risk pools and have to pay whatever they have to pay. several states have that now, the relief is not adequate. this is the first time that we have said that all americans will have access to coverage whether they have a preexisting coverture not. immediately insurance companies would be precluded from excluding children with preexisting conditions. i hope we can go ahead with health care reform. and i yield back. >> are there additional amendments on the motion on the republican side? i beg your pardon. i am anxious to move along here. [laughter] the vote is now on the motion to instruct. all those in favor, say hi. all those opposed, say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

the young lady request a recorded vote. let's move forward. is there an additional motion? ms. campbell is recognized for motion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this would simply delayed the implementation of the legislation until congress has enacted legislation to put the country on a sustainable fiscal path. mr. chairman, as the ranking member, i personally believe that this health care bill is reprehensible on many levels. but i understand that the majority of my colleagues on the other side disagree with that point of view. so let's take your position for a moment. let's say you like this bill and think this health care bill is a good thing. would it not be better to wait

and deal with it when we first went up -- dealt with the entitlement that we blocked, since we know right now we cannot pay for it going forward? could i have a slight five on the screen, police -- slide 5 on the screen, please? this is from the cbo. this is what's going to happen to the debt and deficits on our current path. a lot of this is being driven by the entitlement programs of social security, medicaid, and medicare. we all know that this debt is unsustainable. the president's office of management and budget has said so, the cbo has said so, everything from the brookings institute and the heritage foundation has said so, that we cannot do this. what that means is right now we

have no way to pay for medicare, medicaid, and social security as they exist. which means something has got to change. i understand that we disagree, perhaps, on how we might change that or what we might do to reverse this. but i don't think there is any disagreement in the room that this cannot happen. this is basically saying that america is actuarially bankrupt. and medicare, medicaid, and social security are actuarially bankrupt. should we not do that first before we add a new entitlement? should we deal with the fact that we're going to double the national debt in 10 years -- double in five years before we add a new entitlement? when the president's director of office and manage and budget for a steering committee to --

today, he said that that deficit was completely unsustainable. it would lead to higher interest rates which would lead to a drop in gdp, a loss in jobs, and perhaps lead to america not being able to sell its debt, at not being able to sell treasury bills. and yet the budgets we have never fall below 4% of gdp. the bill that is being talked about here, a health-care bill, it adds over $1 trillion of new spending. and new taxes. you will say that it does not add to the deficit. i don't think we agree with that point but let's discuss that later. it sure as heck does not help it. it adds $1 trillion more spending that we have to pay

for, and taxes that have to be paid for. shouldn't we fix this first? should we figure out a way that we can have a medicare system, have a social security system, have medicaid going forward, before we add a new entitlement when we cannot pay for that? it's similar to families that cannot make their house payment taking on a second home. you cannot do that. it is crazy. but that is what we're doing today. this motion says please pay for what we have got, figure out all way to save what we've got, make a white -- figure out a way to make america a fiscally responsible going forward, before we add new spending in new taxes a new entitlements on top of what we have. i would like to yield to the levy from wyoming, ms. loomis.

lumm -- miss lummis. >> this would delay until congress acts to put us on a sustainable path, so it creates an incentive to put the country on a sustainable fiscal pact in order to proceed with health care reform. we all know that the single biggest driver of our long-term budget crisis is entitlement spending. the president agreed with this when he met with republicans in baltimore in january, and he admitted that entitlements are the primary cause of our unsustainable long term deficits and debt. and yet when director orszag was here testifying in front of this committee, he also said that the administration does not have a specific plan to address our long-term entitlement problems that they are still -- that they are setting up a commission that would help do that.

he also will admitted that the president's own budget is unsustainable. under the president's budget, at deficits never fall below 4% of our economy, and in the decade, over 5% of our economy in spite of the fact that the president's benchmark for sustainability is deficits that are 3% of our economy. this represents uncharted territory and terms of how well affect our economy and the ability of the work, as mr. campbell said, to afford trillions in u.s. debt. and in the meantime, here we are today, doing this process that if it goes to its conclusion will add a new trillion dollar

entitlement to our economy. this is from the gao, $13 trillion of last year's estimate. we cannot afford the entitlements that we already have. it will cost more like $2.3 trillion, if you start the year when the majority of health care bills began. we need to take full responsibility for it entitlement problems that we have because it grew under the republican watch as well. but there is no excuse from using money from social security and medicare to pay for health care reform instead of shoring up the solvency of the programs that we have for future generations.

it will still be there after this debate, far after president obama has left office, probably after most of us in this room are in congress, maybe all of us. but the decisions we made to date, like whether or not to pass a trillion dollar entitlement by a razor-thin margin of votes, is something that our children and grandchildren will see. it is time to dispense with using budget gimmicks to get expansive legislation into a 10- year window and college budget- neutral when mitch is not. it is time for congress to roll up its sleeve and tackle an issue that threatens poll prosperity for future generations. with that, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion and make sure our budget is on a

sustainable path before implementing an undeniably expensive government takeover of health care. and i yield back to the maker of the motion, mr. campbell. >> please join us in agreeing. let's fix what we have before we add something big and expensive to that. and i yield back. >> i think we are all in agreement that there is a problem. health-care costs are exploding. 7% of the health -- of a family's income was going to health care, now it is 17%. a family policy will cost about $30,000 a year. if anybody can get it in 10 years. 14,000 are losing their insurance every day. we have pre-existing conditions. you are unlikely to be able to get insurance.

if you lose your job, you lose your insurance. look at the long-term budget problems that we have, and virtually all our health care. everything else, you can keep at the same percentage of gdp but health care is the number one problem. this bill will reduce the deficit if we pass it. you cannot deal with the pre- existing condition problem or any other problem without a comprehensive plan. delay is not comprehensive plan. let's put this motion in context. we've had a number of different issues. we've had a campaign of complain and blame. no solutions, just complain and blame. the alternatives that we have is compliant, no tough choices, no comprehensive plan. if you look at the plan that was

presented on the floor, it had been evaluated by the cbo and found that the cost savings of that plan would be likely no cost savings at all. it did not deal with pre- existing conditions. it did not cover many insurers. the percentage of people uninsured today it would say the same -- today would stay the same. let's put that in context. last year, we passed s-chip when it had been vetoed by the previous administration. we insured 4 million more people. the entire comprehensive plan from the other side insured only 3 million people. and people believe that we've done nothing for health care? if you will categorize the

republican alternative as less than nothing. we have done 4 million already. it is interesting to note what we are asked to wait for. we're talking about a sustainable fiscal chart. if you want to know what a sustainable fiscal path this, look at the blue line in this chart. that was the sustainable fiscal path. it was passed in 1993 with zero republican votes in the house or the senate. the administration and did having the debt attempt to get us off of this path. we had a projected surplus of $ 5.5 trillion >>. we would have paid off the entire debt held by the public and of china nothing, japan

nothing, saudi arabia nothing, because with that -- we would have paid off the entire debt. instead we took another path and you can see where that has gotten us. got us into a situation where we have instead trillions of dollars in new debt. at least $9 trillion, overshot the budget at least a jury in dollars a year. -- eight trillion dollars a year. -- a trillion dollars zero years. and how did they pass that? using reconciliation. we've had complained and blame the talk about the deficits, but no plan. you can increase taxes or cut spending.

we have -- we are in the middle of recession and we've had no suggestion that we do either one. we have had the complaint and the blame but no suggestions. anything that we have done on the federal level is offsetting that. we need to spend more money to offset what they're doing, but i have not heard anyone say that we should cut spending or increase taxes. no, just a complain and blame. the other side wants to know what a sustainable fiscal path is, back to 1993 budget plan and see what it looks like. we are now digging ourselves out of recession and the deficit, and it will take tough choices. health care reform is one of those tough choices, because the increase in health-care costs

-- really the long term problem, it will reduce the deficit. we need to stop complaining and blaming and make the tough choices. this plan we have before us today are tough choices. we have had a lot of complaints, but we should not let 14 million americans lose their insurance while we delay what we're going to do. i hope that we reject the motion and proceed to solve our health care problems with the plot -- a bill that we have before us. and i yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. all of us are concerned about the debt. we can just acknowledge that up front. the question is, are we willing to do something about it? one thing to say that you are concerned, another thing to say you're going to do something about it. one of the first major votes that i took in this body was to start down the path of getting

the federal budget back in balance. that did it, we turned it to a surplus, mr. scott and tell you how we got to where we are today. i will not go over that now, but my colleagues and friends on the other side need to remember that deficits don't matter? i happen to disagree with that. that is why we are where we are. deficits do matter. and today, we are trying to start down the path of doing something about it. you know and i know that health care costs are rising at an alarming rate. as a matter of fact, the growth in health-care spending is projected, if we do not do anything about it, to triple -- not double, triple -- over the next 40 years. health care reform is budget reform. let me say that again -- health

care reform and insurance reform is budget reform. how can we put our budget on a sustainable path without addressing the biggest challenge that we face, but growing cost of insurance and health care? that is like cranking up the car and think you're going to drive it, and refusing to put fuel in it. you are not likely to get very far on this issue of fixing the national debt. but the independent congressional budget office and the office of management and budget are firm. we could reduce that deficit by over $100 billion, and the senate -- and over $1 trillion in the next 10 years.

they say at has nothing to prevent medicare from going bankrupt. but we have to keep going and the right to richard for my children and the next generation and i yield back. >> if we pass the bill as it is, the cbo says that the house bill reduce the deficit of $138 billion over 10 years, the senate by more. and the critical importance is that the second thing, the senate bill reduces deficits by over $1 trillion. that is how you do it. the senate bill -- studies have shown that it extends the solvency of medicare by 10 years. republican alternative does nothing to prevent medicare from going bankrupt in seven years. we have to stop the complain and blame, and so we must reject

this amendment. i yield back. >> i recognize mr. campbell for one minute. >> four brief points. but mr. expert and mr. scott mentioned blame. -- mr. etherege and mr. scott mentioned land. you blamed the republicans for the deficit, but we are all to blame for that deficit. i am afraid you -- we are not blaming anyone here but all of us. mr. scott says that there is no plan. the opposite is true. mr. ryan has the only plan that deals with this problem, the only plants that deals with the insolvency of the park -- of the country. even the president does not have a plan to deal with that. health care reform is budget reform -- even if you accept the gimmicks to plug in at night for -- that number, that does

not solve the problems on the board. we need to solve that before we do anything. members, we are going bankrupt. this will increase that bankruptcy. we need to deal with our debt and deficits. i yield back. >> the book now occurs on the motion of mr. campbell. all those in favor, say hi. all opposed, appeared in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. >> i'll ask for recorded vote. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. [inaudible] >> on that vote, the ayes are 14, the no's 23. >> the motion is not agreed to. [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, there's not a

member in this room that has not heard from a senior about the down that hole -- the doughnut hole. but health reform is about keeping americans helping. that includes insurance and it also includes medicare. it is no good if you cannot afford your copiaay. the democratic plan addresses the concern that top seniors have. it is not what it needs to be to be affordable. let me talk about the four men at. the seniors cannot have to be forced between paying their bills and the medicine that they need to stay healthy. and in some cases, literally stay alive. that happens all too often under the current system, the thing that we call that doughnut hole.

reform will also eliminate copayment under medicare in order to keep seniors help the as well. too many people fail to get the preventive care that they need simply because they do not have the money for the copay. this makes important strides to make sure that every american has access to affordable, quality health care choices. millions of our seniors are being overwhelmed by the out of pocket drug cost. to many are going without the drugs they desperately need, which will lead to more seniors having health costs -- health problems, longer -- higher long- term health costs, which will have a major impact not only on our budget but the quality of life of citizens. health care reform will close the doughnut hole and medicare part d.

it eliminates the doughnut hole and gives seniors the stability that they need. let me tell you a couple of stories. i got a call today from a friend of mine who lives in the mountains of north carolina. he called me on another matter and he drifted to this one. he said, i go outside the united states once a year to buy medicaid, because i have a neighbor who cannot afford it because they get into the doughnut holes so quickly. and that not -- that ought not to happen in the united states. we can fix that. and we ought to fix that. and a lady called me in the last month from clayton, who lives in my district she is representative of a lot of people in this country. her copayment is $800, but

medication costing $700. folks, we can fix this. we had a chance to fix this. one thing about talking about caring and sharing in health care, we now have a chance to make a difference. mr. chairman, i now yield to my colleague, mr. bresser -- becerra. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i hope we can get back to what this is all about. this is to reform all about giving the american people -- that includes all our seniors on medicare -- more control over their health care and their health insurance. certainly not for any bureaucrat or the government, by giving

people more control. in this bill, for those who say, i want to keep my doctor, in this bill, not only will seniors get to keep their doctors but actually get to visit their doctor all little bit more for well as care for preventative care, because this bill says, sometimes you have to make a decision between buying of food and visiting the doctor for wellness visits. you have to ration your dollars. you are on a fixed income. you have to make a decision between a prescription drug and paying the rent on your part of it. guess what? in this bill, we tell our seniors on medicare, you can go visit that doctor and you will not pay a cent. you can go to that preventative care visit and it is covered for the first time. that is what we do for seniors. on top of that, we tackle waste,

fraud, and abuse that i think each of us would agree exists in the medicare system head on -- head on. and by doing so, we are able to save a lot of money that we can pay -- we can use to pay for those preventative care visits that they can use now. and guess what else? for the first time, the bill that our republican bills advance, the prescription care drawbridge, the gaping don't hold that our republican friends left in the bill, requiring seniors to pick up when under% of the cause, we can eliminate that doughnut hole once and for all in this reform bill. some medicare savings will be had through waste, fraud, and abuse attacks. we're going to use that money to give our seniors full coverage. no more doughnut hole,

preventative care visits, and they can use the doctor that they choose. that is had to do it. that is what the american people need, and it -- and this is just good policy for great policy, and they will be for it as well. >> i want to thank my colleague. one of the things that we've heard time after time from our republican colleagues and in the congress, not anyone from this room, i am sure, but from the majority leader in the senate, that the democrats are proposing to slash medicare. when i had been home and i have been asked about that, prove to me how you're not going to slash medicare, i talk about that doughnut hole coverage, does that sound like slashing to you? they say that it sounds pretty

good. that is what we're proposing to do here. in this bill, we confront a dilemma proposed by a man i spoke to edit this fried just last wednesday evening. -- that i spoke to an fish fry just last month. i know that this is a big strain on him. he makes the decision whether or not the by that drug. the alarming thing, he can buy the same drug from canada for $29. if this plan had been adopted, they have allowed -- if they allow medicare to negotiate for drugs, maybe when not have to pay the $150. but he is stuck with the wall that says. not only would it say this gentleman a considerable portion of the $150 a month, maybe if we

had the added kit -- added step of allowing medicare to negotiate for drugs, it would reduce it to an equal amount. but this is an important step forward, proving to the american people that we're not slashing medicare, we're doing great benefits for them and saving them money. we're extending their help and their quality of living. with that, i yield back. the list i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i think that we can agree that the seniors, many of whom came home from world war ii, who have made a difference in this country, we now have a chance to give them something back. let's close this down the whole once and for all. and with that, i -- this does not hold -- doughnut hole once and for all.

>> if i could have that chart back up. ladies and gentleman, we are going broke. you do not put something else on the credit card. american families get that, american small business owners get that, the american people get that -- indeed, the only people that do not get that are the policy makers here and watch and. if you cannot afford something, you do not add something to it. we cannot opt for our current model. we cannot pay for what we have currently promised our seniors, and here we are saying that we're going ahead of $134 billion program -- you have got to pay for these things. that adds to the cost of an already gargantuan-costing health care bill. let's just get back and think about where this nation is -- $1.4 trillion last year.

$1.6 trillion this year. everybody in this country has to pay for that, all 700 million of us have to pay for it. this is projected to go to over $20 trillion in the next nine years. think about where this has to go to pay this off. you first have to balance the budget. did you have to run a trillion dollar surplus for the next 20 years, and that does not count the interest. the interest payments, which are now approaching -- they will be there in the next couple of years -- approaching a billion dollars that day. think about where we are at, and what do we get from the other side? a good policy idea, but how do we pay for it? mr. campbell made this point earlier.

when they testified in front of this committee, there were 2.3 he is not aware of anything in the democratic proposal to address the long-term fiscal crisis. let's go back. let me have a chart t2, right there. that is what we are facing today, what we're headed for without this proposal. the -- with the proposal, this is bigger. we need to address our current problem, and mr. campbell made this point, i thought it was very good. the budget that was brought before us by the administration is unsustainable. you cannot run the types of deficits that we're running a 11% of gdp this year, you have to be at least at 4% of gdp to be sustainable. if not, it will be difficult to

pay off in the future. one other thought. why pick this policy to address? something that is important to all americans -- why is that not being addressed? and then we'll to my colleague from california. we have been told repeatedly by the president that health care reform is entitlement reform, but spending an additional $134 billion with no plan to pay for it is the opposite of reform. all it does is add debt and build up the deficit and passes it on to our kids and our grandkids. and i'll close with this. think about what made this country big. parents make sacrifices for their kids. when they become adults, they do the same thing for their children. what we have now in washington

is this focus on living for the now, spending for the now, living for the moment, us and spent -- and sending the bill to someone else. it is wrong and it should stop here by defeating this motion to instruct. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think it is appropriate that we have the markup of the bill this week, seeing that it is st. patrick's week, because we have to believe in leprechauns in order to pay this debt that this bill will pile up. i want to revisit the history. i don't think there are very many on the other side of the aisle that voted for the medicare partd prescription bill. in fact, they continued to attack that bill as being something not paid for. you say, you never paid for it, shame on you, republicans. and then you say, shame on you

for having this whole, so we're going to fix it. you cannot have it both ways. either you like it or you do not like it. although none of you voted for medicare part d, none of you brought a bill to get rid of it. now we have an amendment to fill the doughnut hole. at the same time coming to complain about republicans passing a bill that was not paid for, and fact. maybe on wednesday, leprechauns will appear and help pay for it when it is on chart two. we have medicaid and medicare, they are both government-run programs. and the conference in it's infinite wisdom is going to add a new program or miraculously cover 30 million people, and we are told that it is not going to cost the taxpayers one dime.

the cbo scores it neutral, that joint task force corset neutral -- nobody believes that. maybe you guys believe in leprechauns, but the american people do not believe and leprechauns. i don't even think if you found a leprechaun, that the leprechaun would have an extra trillion dollars to pay for the unfunded liabilities. as we continue to go down this road and you continue to say that this health care bill is paid for, and the new offer amendments like this that this fix will be another $150 billion? you will need more than one leprechaun to pay for this. at this point, the american people know this game is a gimmick, always, a takeover of their health care programs. you guys know it, and that is why you are -- it is great top

give things away, well, sure. who does not want things for free? who does not want things from the government? in an election year, you will offer anything. the problem is, there is no way to pay for it. you have managed to take mike and rational district up to 20% unemployment. -- my congressional district up to 20% unemployment with the brilliant policies implemented by the left in the california that have broken the state. so perhaps now come up with this huge new government program that i am sure everyone will love once they get it, so they are told, until the bill comes due and they have to pay for it. we will see if the leprechauns appear on wednesday, and i yield back to the gentleman. >> the american people understand that if you present a bill that is going to further

bankrupt the country, and here we have a proposal which has more to that end cents in the wrong direction even more. the american people get that. and they got that last year. you all say you're going to pass this health care bill in september, and the people said no. then there are going to do before thanksgiving, and the american people said no produce at christmas, and the american people said no. them before the state of the union, and the american people said no. what part of no do you know get? now you say it is going to before easter. they do not like being told what to do and that particularly do not like it when it is bankrupting the country. they have said no time and time again and yet here you are, to a bill that is already going to bankrupt, if you are adding more to it. we cannot pay for it. that at the bottom line. that is why we are opposed to it. that is why the american people

are opposed to it. that is why every poll being done shows that the american people do not want this legislation. what part of know do you not get? that is what's wrong with this spirit that is why we're opposed to that. and with that, we yield back our time. >> mr. etherege is recognized for one minute to close. >> let rear -- let me remind the judgment that this bill is not put on a credit card like the previous bill. we passed paygo and is paid for. you may not have heard that early pre medicare part d was not passed for -- paid for when it was passed. i would remind our colleagues -- put that chart up again, it ran from 1941-200046.

you use these to make your point, i understand that. but as long as you're being honest about it, that a sense that nothing will be done between now and 2046. that is a bit deceptive. but we can agree on one thing -- this does not whole ought to be closed and we have an opportunity to do that. >> all time having expired, all those in favor, say i. opposed, say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. a recorded vote has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. are there additional members who wish to be recorded? anyone who wishes to change their vote? if not, the court will announce the vote. >> the ayes are 23 and the nose or 15. -- and a no's are 15. the motion is agreed to. the gentleman has a motion. the clerk will report the motion. >> we have at the desk a motion

offered by mr. ryan. [unintelligible] >> so ordered. [inaudible] >> we're taking up his motion. >> what this motion does is prevent medicare cuts from being used to fund new entitle programs and would direct savings to the medicare program. bring up slide #3, please. let's see where we are from a fiscal perspective. this shows you the trajectory of medicare and medicaid right now, are two biggest medicare -- entitlement programs. it shows you the path "we are on. they are on their way to consume the entire federal budget. obviously, we have an issue with

this. what we are simply saying is, let's not make this problem worse. in 2014, the new entitlement being created in this legislation kick sand. three years later, according to medicare's actuaries, medicare goes bankrupt. so what are we doing here? we're taking $467 billion in money from the medicare program, not to improve the solvency of medicare, but it created -- treated like a piggybacking to create this new program. i have all letter here from jeff sessions, which says that you cannot count the money twice. this money coming out of medicare is not going to medicare. it will not fix the insolvency. it is going to pay for this other entitlement program. what are we looking at? according to the chief actuary

of medicare, this results in 20% of medicare's providers either going bankrupt or just dropping medicare patients altogether. millions of people are going to lose their medicare advantage program that they have chosen and now enjoy. but look at where we are right now with medicare. according to the gao to day, we have a $30 trillion unfunded liability for medicare. that is a $335,000 burden for every burden in america today. -- every household in america today. what if we do not do anything to solve this problem until 2014, when this new entitlement that what you are creating here today kicks sand? it will be a $2 trillion on funded liability -- underfunded