she has a pre-existing condition. and she -- i have watched her get all her treatment without the problems. i have a daughter that lives in new york, she lost her job. has no insurance. she has to pay. i think it's a long time coming. and the other thing is that these members are saying that the people, the people do not want this insurance. who are the people? they are not speaking for me nor any one of my families. i don't know who the people are. and i think they have nothing that this president tries to do to be successful. guest: gertrude, i agree with you. thank you. i think that if your daughter has that pre-existing condition that she never again should be denied the right to get insurance. and i don't think she should be

charged more for that insurance than someone who doesn't have that pre-existing condition. and when we pass this bill, and president obama signs it, that will be the case. i think it's long, long overdue. host: cincinnati, ohio, republican line. john, good morning. guest: good morning, john. caller: good morning. i would like to dispute, especially the last caller, a few points here. first of all, if her daughter is unemployed, not working, and still paying health care, she is eligible for state aid. now the state will cover anyone who is unemployed, with no income. and as for the other lady, too, who got rambling about how it's going to help everyone and the middle class. if she thinks her premiums are going to go down, everyone is in agreement that the premiums are going to continue to go up. our president has said it. pa lowsy has said it. all the congress has said it. it's never going to go down.

-- pelosi has said it. all the congress has said it. it's never going to go down. how can you force americans to pay for something and mandate something? i heard it compared to auto insurance. auto insurance is not mandated. i have heard this across the line from our president, from pelosi, across the line, the speaker yesterday said the same thing. auto insurance is not mandated. people who ride the bus and don't own a vehicle do not pay auto insurance. guest: john, if i may. on the first point about being able to get state aid or medicaid if you are unemployed, that's usually not true if you own a home. if you have assets you are excluded from the made prom. -- program. if somebody works hard and buys a house, they don't get medicaid. so this is different. as far as being forced to buy something, since 1965 we have had mandatory enrollment in medicare. if you hit 65, you have to

enroll. there are premiums. i think we can disagree about the policy, but the legal precedent is quite clear. host: are there constitutional concerns as far as the mandating of the purchase of health care? guest: i'm sure it will be litigated. i'm sure that an honest decision would say it's wholly constitutional. if medicare is constitutional in requiring people to enroll, which it is, then i think this is not actually different. i must say i worry about the supreme court. i think the citizens united decision was, frankly, the most radical decisions in plessy vs. ferguson. we are trying very hard to write a law, to write a bill that will be successful when there is a constitutional challenge, which i no doubt believe will come. but i think there's no question that this bill is constitutional. host: do you worry about the court? certain members? guest: this is a very little -- i think that the citizens united

decision was an incredibly radical power grab where the court addressed an issue that was never before it. so i think we have to be very careful that this bill is written in such a way that precludes that kind of power grab in the future. host: tinder hook, new york, for rob andrews who is with us for another nine minutes. this is al on our independent line. caller: good morning. good morning, pedro, how you doing? a couple quick points. make sure my tv is all the way muted. two months ago i called in they had a gentleman there who -- i'm not sure -- it was an independent organization that analyzes these kind of programs. i asked him a question specifically. the moneys that are going to go in -- this is not a free program, people are under the illusion that this is free. the moneys that will be taxed from us will go into a general

fund like social security. and that the government will not tap into that fund. and i'm asking, will the government never tap into that fund, that general fund, like they do in social security? i would like a specific answer on that question. second of all, as the state governments, which are facing near bankruptcy, yours included, mine included, once they hit that level of not being able to pay for their essential services , what is the government going to do? and thirdly, this is just a general appraisal so far of the democratic party, the republican party. and president obama. once again he is putting the cart before the horse. if there was a surplus in the economy were doing well, i would say let's go for this.

it's a great concept. something that's well deserved and overdue. but president obama seems to always put the cart before the horse and this is a tremendous leap of faith. guest: al, if i could try to answer your questions. the bill says very specifically that the moneys collected here are exclusively to be used for the health plan. congress has broken that promise in the past. presidents have broken that promise in the past. i want to do everything i can to make sure this one is kept. second, as far as state governments are concerned, there are some new obligations for states under medicaid. seven, eight, nine, 10 years from now. states will pay 10% of the cost of the new medicaid enrollees. that's way down the road. and i think frankly states get a much better deal because uninsured people, they are presently paying to take care of, are now going to be covered as a result of this program. your final point, i think this bill puts the horse before the

cart. i don't think that you can begin to bring our economy back to health when businesses and families and state and local governments are paying enormous amounts for health insurance for their employees. it is one of the main reasons why -- businesses and families and state and local governments are guest: i believe if we have more competition. if we bring down the cost of premiums over time, our businesses will be healthier. our families will be in better financial shape and so will our country. >> right now, the house rules committee is meeting in order to organize for procedures for the legislation that is expected on

the floor tomorrow afternoon. this legislation aims to amend the bill in december. henry waxman is speaking there as they go to the house rules committee and we will stay with us until the house gabbles back in about 10:30. eliminating the special medicaid from nebraska. increasing federal matching rates to all states for the cost of services, including individuals beginning in 2014. improving federal medicaid payments to states that cover childless adults that they are treated equitably. the new medicaid beneficiaries will have access to primary care, greater investment into community health centers and

forming medicare advantage and ensuring sustainability and strengthening medicare services. health reform is not only a moral imperative, it is an economic ones and it will reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades. i look forward to the deliberations of this committee and to your approval and the house approval tomorrow of the most important health legislation since medicare and the most important package of domestic legislation in social security in 1935. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i have been in congress 26 years. i think i have everybody out

ranked. this is the most important domestic policy issue in my time in congress. i think it is a very serious meeting today of your rules committee. i have a statement that i will put into the record. what i want to emphasize is that i hope when ever you and your wisdom decide to do, that he put up some sort of a rule that is based on a regular order. i want everybody to understand, if in fact a decision is made by your leadership to pass this self executing pass, you are going to have a vote or you are not going to have a vote on a bill that passed the senate on christmas eve. it comes to the house and if the rule is passed, it is deemed

that it is passed and there will be no vote, no debates on the substantive policy differences between house and the senate. i am told that on its own, the bill that the senate passed would not pass the house because there is not a majority, there is not 216 votes in your conference to pass it. we start off, if that is the way you decide to do it, we start off redeeming something -- with dating something passed that nobody in the house gets to debate or have a vote on. then the debate perfunctorily, maybe an hour, maybe two hours, and a reconciliation package that the only people that have really seen it in depth are those distinguished members of the budget committee. since 1983, which is the year

before i got elected, the senate has only one time accepted a reconciliation package that came out of the house first. it's the last 30 years are relevance -- in the last 30 years are relevant, you are probably not to going to get the senate to agree in the changes that have been made in reconciliation. if that happens, what you are going to have is the president is going to sign a bill that the house never voted on, the senate passed on christmas eve and it makes revolutionary changes in the way our health care system has been done. it does not have to be that way. you do not have to be a partisan republican or a partisan democrat to know that there are legitimate differences and that we need to try to alleviate

those differences. the speaker of the house and whoever else on the majority side -- we could go to conference with the senate. you can freeze the republicans out, if the majority of the democrats in the house and senate can agree and sign the same report, you can bring a bill back to both bodies for an up or down vote. that is not easy. it is hard to do, but it would work. this process crops and prostitutes the system -- crops and prostitutes the system. i know all of you personally and respected. i would not use such language if i really did not believe it. we are about to unleash a cultural war in this country if we use this process and do not

allow the legitimate differences to be debated and moderated and compromise. my main point is, did not do this. officially, i am asking for an open rule. that is not likely to happen, but you could do a modified closed rule. you could make a republican substitute in order. you could make several amendments in order. we could have some sort of the debate tomorrow afternoon and i might point out that as far as i can tell, with both the senate bill and the reconciliation package, the main components in terms of policy change did not kick in until 2014. it is not like we have to be here on a sunday afternoon. it is not like we have -- do not have enough time to act to have a debate. if you remember the debates on the tax reform act of 1986, if

you remember the debate on the board resolution under the first iraq gulf war, we have extended debate. we let every member of the house that wanted to speak. madam speaker, i could go through the substance, but we have a number of members -- i would hope that amendments would be made to keep out some of the special deals that have been kicked in for various states and localities. i cannot emphasize strongly enough come up for the sanctity of the institution, we have got to rule that it is based on a regular order and not some sleight of hand subterfuge that was never intended for things of this sort. republicans used it, too. some would say.

but we use it for bills that have already passed the house or were there was at least agreement between the house and the senate's -- house and senate. it was to expedite a process that was already pretty much agreed upon. this is not the case here. we cannot even agree on what should be in the reconciliation package as far as i can tell. i do appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to testify. i do hope that regular order will prevail. >> thank you very much. i think we will question these two issues. >> i appreciate that. >> mr. barton, a conference would have been wonderful for the last three years. we have not been able to do that. i know that senator mcconnell

announced last year that there would be a conference on this bill. i appreciate that you are the bluebird of happiness and that somehow we believe that we could do this all lovely and sweetness and light. but we do not have any evidence to prove that. i love to hear it. i agree with you. nothing would please me more than if we were all working together and if we could try to give this done. it will be the most important thing that i'll be voting not in my career here. i hate it that one of the parties has opted out. we have to play the hand that is dealt us. we're doing the best that we can. i have always appreciated your advice. >> can i comment on that briefly? the thing that i have worked hardest on in my time of it --

in congress is the energy policy. we passed a comprehensive energy bill back in 2005. that same bill did not get out of conference in 2003 did not even get out of the senate in 2001. it took three congresses, but we did finally get a bill and it did have bipartisan support. approximately a third of the house democrats voted for it. a majority of the senate democrats voted for it. the work in a bipartisan fashion. it took six years, but it did happen. it forces compromises and it brings everybody to the table.

the reconciliation package that the budget committee has put together, the only people that have had input into that are the inside democrats in the house and the senate. and i guess the president and his staff. it is automatically not going to have all the compromises that would if you had a little bit different process that i'm talking about. >> i do not know of anything that has had -- we have gone over the bill section by section and worked very hard on them. i was here during the senate health care debate and i remember the things that were set about it. -- said about it. one of the worst things for me was that the information that went out to senior citizens. if by some chance a senior went to the wrong doctor, it was going to cost them under clinton's plan, $10,000.80 jail time. that is the kind of thing that

we have been having here. i really have to stand up for my side. we have tried every way in the world to try to be bipartisan. we have won a conferences and we have simply have had to play the hand that has been dealt us. i wish we could have done better. i think in time, everybody that will see that what we have done here has made the difference in the united states. we have to get on with that. i thank you very much for all the work that you have done with your staff. i have no idea how much time you have put in on this. i cannot even begin to complicate -- contemplate that. we feel like we have been pregnant for 17 months, let's get on with it already. >> thank you very much. i was told that when we came up today, we were going to hear

from all the witnesses. i know that a number of the members of the panel have been very, very important commitments that they would like to address. i would like to propose that maybe we could hear from other witnesses. if we exhaust and have all 13 members of the rules committee and ask them questions, it means that these other witnesses will be sitting here for a long period of time. >> i was not given net news. >> i was given that news. it was communicated to my staff that we were going to hear from the chairs and the ranking members of the committees and then we were going to begin with the questions. >> it is fine with me.

>> let us hear from from the ways and means committee. thank you. >> you're very welcome. it is a little close there, isn't it? >> it takes a lot of brainpower. >> thank you for this opportunity. let me say hello to my longtime colleagues. i'm sorry my back is to you. we face a challenge, not only in this country -- >> is your microphone on?

>> that is better. today we face a challenge not only in this congress, but in this country, and i think it is a crisis. for those who like their insurance, it is important that we be able to keep it. the problem is being too expensive to keep. the costs are going up. i look at my home state of michigan, blue cross blue shield, they have a majority of the consumers in the state. they requested an increase of over 40%. people are subject to what are called recisions, this determination of their policies annual limits.

they are subject to lifetime caps. a huge proportion of the bankruptcies in this country, because of medical cost. if people want to move, and many are locked into their jobs because it is the only way they get insurance, but if they decide to move, they can be handicapped because of pre- existing conditions and they cannot get their insurance. as we all know, we have 45 million americans or more than to not have insurance. -- that do not have insurance. what this bill does is to build on the present system. 95% of americans would be covered. we're the only nation --

industrial nation -- that has a huge number of uninsured people. that is more than a challenge, it is a crisis. what we do here is to have been individual mandate -- have an individual mandate and i have heard all the discussion about the dangers of an individual mandate. in 1993 and 1994, the linchpin of the republican approach on health care reform was an individual mandate. we provide tax credits -- and i want to talk about substance and not focus on process. that is what we're here today to do. we have tax credits to make this affordable for people and we also provide that if people will not pay, provide insurance, that we are paying it.

we have the plate -- we have employer responsibility in this bill. this has been so misstated. smaller businesses will be excluded altogether and that is the vast majority of businesses. we provide in this bill a tax credit to help small businesses cover people. we have an individual mandate helping people pay and we have employer responsibility. as mr. waxman suggested, we begin to close the doughnut hole, the payments of prescription medicine by seniors. shall we go beyond this? this is a fiscally responsible

set of provisions. i think you notice this bill extends the solvency of the trust fund for nine years. cbo has told us and i have read the literature that has come out, cbo has said that the first 10 years are going to reduce the deficit by hundred $30 billion. -- by $130 billion. let me say a few words about how we pay for it. we have eight medicare health- insurance tax on people who have been come over $250,000.

the tax is on the income over $250,000. we take care of the overpayments for the medicare advantage, overpayments and we need a fiscally responsible medicare advantage program. we also have measures to control waste and abuse. there is an excise tax on health plans. we have debated it at length. people who say we have not debated this bill, that it comes out of some sky or from under the ground, we have debated this provision as the have all others regarding the tax on health care plans. we reduce it by a 80%.

it was never in my judgment going to basically bend the curve. i want to finish by talking about how we've been to the kurds in this proposal. we do it -- how we bend the kurds in this proposal. we do it and talk about it within the ways and means committee. we have pilot programs and we have taken the lid off the pilot program so that we can change the service system. i look around and some of us know each other very well. others less well. i do not know everybody's family history. i know my own. our present system has to change. we cannot do it overnight. paying based on volume instead of results has to change.

what is in this bill is the mechanism that is controversial. what it does is to put in place a structure so that we can have recommendations to this congress as to how we change the system over time. we retain in the congress the ability, if we do not like the recommendation, to come over -- to come up with our own targets. those who say that this is a system that is based -- not built on keeping what you have if you like it, they are very wrong. those who minimize the importance of covering 45 million americans who do not have insurance, they're wrong. those who say we are cutting medicare benefits, they're wrong. what we're doing is cutting an

increase in the payments to providers overtime and if you challenge that, you are saying that there is no waste in this system. we're not cutting medicare benefits. . we're putting in place - >> we will leave the committee now. you can continue watching this live on c-span2. we returned to the floor of the house, which is just back in. h.r. 1612, a bill to amend the public lands corps act of 1993, to expand the authorization of the secretaries of agriculture, commerce and the interior, to provide service-learning opportunities on public lands, help restore the nation's natural, cultural, historical, archaeological, recreational and scenic resources, train a

new generation of public land managers and enthusiasts and promote the value of public service. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1172, the bill is considered read, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended it shall be in order to consider the further amendments printed in part c of house report 111-445. each of which may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. the gentleman from arizona and the gentleman from utah each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, again, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert

extraneous material on h.r. 1612. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam speaker. i rise todayed in strong support of h.r. 1612, a bill i introduced last year to help repair and restore our nation's public lands while employing and training thousands of young americans and promoting the culture of public service. in 1993 when the public lands corps was established through the good work of our late colleague of minnesota there were huge backlogs of labor-intensive work on national park lands, forest, wildlife refuge, historic sites and indian lands. unfortunately, we still face those challenges and -- those challenges and more. years of inadequate funding to put our federal land management agencies further behind on vital maintenance work while infrastructure continues to crumble. despite the best efforts of these underfunded agencies, natural and cultural resources are being neglected. and in many places the effects of climate change are magnifying earlier problems such as fire risks, damage by

insects and evasive species. the stimulus bill we passed in the first session have begun to attack the problem but is only a start. much remains to be done on the public lands. my bill, h.r. 1612, will expand and reinvigorate an existing program, the public lands corps, by streamlining its management, modernizing its scope and providing new tools to help the program accomplish its vision, putting young people to work, repairing our most treasured resources. young people participate in the public lands service corps will work side by side with professional land managers to collect biological data, preserve historic documents, rebuild roads and trails, attack evasive weeds, reduce fire risks and improve watershed health, paint visitor facilities, restore damaged wetlands, help build green buildings and welcome visitors to our parks and public lands.

these and a wide variety of other jobs will be available to corps members for a period up to two years. their term in service will include the training they need to do these jobs. my bill also allows the agencies to provide housing for corps participants and even allow the corps members to build housing that can be used by future corps members. the training and experience corps members receive while working to improve the condition of our natural and cultural resources will give them a huge advantage when they enter the working world in such professions as science, land management, the building trades, academic disciplines such as history and education. the legislation not only fakes a decisive step -- takes a decisive step in restoring our fun lands, historic sites and independent lan lands, but also recognizes the importance of our coastal and marine systems and our national marine sanctuaries. this expanded public service

initiative will introduce people from a greater diversity of social, ethnic and cultural backgrounds to our nation's parks, forests and public lands. not only as possible future employees but also as lifelong advocates and enthusiasts. the legislation takes advantage of an opportunity to provide meaningful employment in training to young people who need it while also improving the condition of our priceless natural and cultural resources. president obama and interior secretary salazar have made national service a priority and have graciously supported this legislation. i am also proud of -- to have the support of preimminent conservation corps groups as well as leading national park advocacy groups. i ask my colleagues to support the passage of this measure. at a time when unemployment among our youth and particularly the urban areas is that an all-time high, h.r. 1612 begins to address that crisis and also to address the

unmet needs of our public lands. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume, without objection. mr. bishop: madam speaker, i as well as many who are on the floor am just pleased to be here on a saturday morning to discuss the bill that is the significance and the reason why we are here, and also the side-view of being able to count the numbers here to be part of an historical occasion. this is perhaps a metaphor for this session. as we begin this weekend reality play that definitely does fit into the theater of the absurd. this is a good program but there is much common good which we could have found a great deal of common support had this

bill been allowed to have some bipartisanship with it. both the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee had amendments that we had -- that had been proposed in the committee that were withdrawn under the assumption that they would be worked upon and added to the final bill when it came here to the floor. that was not simply the case. so it could have been an easy bill to pass with common assumptions to it that would have been one of the things that could have been done in a bipartisan way has now been turned into something that has a partisan flavor to it as the only rule bill that we have for this weekend so far simply because of standards that we have had in this proposal. this is -- this is indeed a metaphor for what we are doing and what we have been doing for much of this session. i do have some concerns, madam speaker, for this bill in three basic areas. first of all, the concept of funding and fiscal responsibility.

secondly, the concept of curriculum that will be involved in this program. and third, what i would probably call is the genealogy of this particular program. one of the amendments or one of the requests that we had is that this bill should be sunsetted in some particular way. there will be an amendment that will be brought to the floor that will add a sunset to this particular bill. this spends $12 million a year. for some people that's considered a lot of money. around here i realize that's simply a rounding error. but what it does if you pass this particular bill it takes off the cap of this program at $12 million and allows it to be funded at any level. the c.b.o. assumed it would be $120 million over five years. how they reached that assumption no one really knows. one of the things we should do if we were fiscally responsible was to make sure there was a specific cap on this program and that there was a sunset

provision so it can be reviewed. one of the things we all realize around this country, especially as we talk about the increasing deficit of this country, is that there are some things that the federal government must do. defense of this country is one of the things we must do. there are some things we should never do, and there are some things that fall into those limited categories, though it would be nice to do if it meets with our priorities and we have the means to provide them. providing for the park service, healthy forest is one of those things we should do. but it must be set in the environment of how much money we have and where our priorities lie. having kids being groomed to be future managers is a nice thing to do on these public lands if it fits into our priorities. and that is why this program should be reviewed at a regular basis by congress. once these types of programs are passed on indefinitely and become embodied within the budget itself it is never reviewed by this body again, which is our function and our responsibility.

if anything was done in a self-executing rule, the amendment we'll talk about later to actually put a cap on this program and make sure we review it on a regular basis, that should have been self-executing because it is our responsibility as congress and we should not abrogate that particular responsibility. second concern i do have is the curriculum -- what i call the curriculum of this particular program. it has been portrayed by groups to us that this is like a new version of the c.c.c. coming along trying to make changes and improvements in public lands. if that were the case we would probably have very little concern about it. but that is not necessarily what will be allowed if this bill actually goes into effect. what this bill does is simply say -- see, when this bill was originally started, the program was originally started, the fwole is to have kids working on projects that would benefit specifically our forest service and public lands. but unfortunately as this is

now altered there is no guarantee of where the funds will go and what the priorities will be which is one of the things we simply wanted, keep the program to do what it was intended to do. this time the government will send money much of which will be handled by the conservation program. they will be the ones to facilitate programs and give grants. how it will be structured no one knows. ensuring this is done to the betterment of public lands, this allows for money to go to political issues in the -- under the guys of some kind of conner is -- under the guise of some kind of conservationship. this has been anti-affordable energy, anti-coal-fired plants, pro-higher taxes and energy costs. our staff had the opportunity of looking on the will be site of this particular group. they sponsored a conference here in washington several years ago sponsored by the national park service. some funding by the national park service in which the curriculum for that conference

was not just about how we improve our fun lands but also how one stages protests, how one can do a sit-in to prevent a timber harvest from taking place. in fact, as you look at their website, their organizing list starts small and then grow and then fund in the process. now, once again, that's not what this program was intended to do nor should it be the program and there are no prohibitions to say that this program will not evolve into that form. have they simply added amends we wanted to say what the purposes and the directions of this program were, once again, it would be a very good bipartisan bill. but that was not allowed. it's not allowed by leadership here or in the rules committee to take that place in form. this student conservation association, once again, has taken a great deal of stimulus funds that were added in the stimulus bill. in each of those, once again, there was much that was involved that was advocacy outside of building our public

lands. one of the funds got $18,000 into my community to assist in building a public library so they could associate at the refuge center with conservation efforts. $120,000 was given to this group so they'd go into new england and show legal techniques and practices of how they could use the legal system to reach goals that they had. that's political activism which is not what this program was about, not what in program to which this program should evolve into itself. one of the things -- madam speaker, if i could use -- funded as part of this program is the mo udall legacy bus door. it was a 54-day bus tour promoted by the national park service. you can see their logo all the way around here as well as the public of interior to promote sustainability in biodiesel buses. according to the kids, it was a

wonderful 54-day trip. however, most of them said how grateful it was was they visited microbureys, especially biodiversified microbrewry. i don't know how successful this tour was. i don't drink anything harder that are dr pepper so i will ask to see if they're visiting to all the bars they had in the cities in which me went on this particular trip really was worthwhile in making that particular kind of evaluation. nice trip. there's nothing wrongdoing this if they do it on their own dime and not the government's dime. the national park service, which will be in charge of the oversite of this does not have -- oversight of this does not have a great record in this. in 2007 the i.g. in the department of interior came up with just in one park service manage job course center $3 million of misreported

expenditures and $200,000 of improper charges and that's the oversight that we're going to have. those types of things should have been added to the bill. we asked for those types of things to be added to the bill. it would have solved the problems of this particular bill but they weren't done. therefore, we're here complaining about something which should have been and could have been a great program of bipartisan support and it isn't. . let me talk to you about the genealogy for indeed this student conservation association that will be managing this new program was an offspring created by the national park conservation association, the godfather of this program. a group, a special interest group with a history of what i consider to be extreme. a history of filing lawsuits against this government. filing lawsuits against the second amendment rights. efforts to restrict recreation and hunting that are currently permitted to public lands, and presently involved in the national courtroom crusade to destroyed the benefits of

coal-fired plants with letters, with testimony. once again their motives may be pure, fine, it's ok to do that, but not on the government dime. and this bill is written so loosely that it is not clear if any money goes indirectly or directly back to this point to do it. this bill when originally established, this program when originally established was there to inspire use and needs and fill needed programs on public lands. when this program was originally established, by law its highest priority was to generate a new generation of land managers trained specifically to improve public lands and specifically to implement the bipartisan healthy forest restoration act. that was under the current system the highest priority. to help our land. stop catastrophic fires, to improve our forests. it was managed for that.

75% of the money went to that particular issue. that's what should be done. once again in committee when we said let's restate that at least as one of the important criteria, because you see when this bill was written they removed anything that related to healthy forest from the language. reinstate that. we actually said why don't you reinstate it so 50% of this goes to improving the forests of this country. and that wasn't allowed, either. so there is no criteria, there is no reference once again for the purpose of this bill originally which was to make sure we had a healthy forest. instead we have an open-ended bill that could do anything, that could go anywhere, that may commit any kind of function. madam speaker, all of this could be avoided. these are not tough issues. this is not one of the bills that's going to make our break the republic. it could be avoided. it's simply the democrat majority had decided to try to do something in a bipartisan way. if they said these are your objections, let's draft

something to make sure that your restrictions are what we do as well. we didn't need to be here. as i said the committee promised that they would work on this before it came to the floor. i was not privy to those negotiations. i don't know where it went down. but something happened that did not need to happen. and the rules committee, we once again took these amendments to the rules committee, and in their typical fashion the rules committee dropped all of them except for two. that didn't need to take place. typical of what we are doing around here is simply trying to push things through when we don't need to do it. if we really had a spirit of bipartisanship, this would be a thing we could easily accomplish so you can sit back, if this has happened in the past, and simply tell yourself it could have been great. it could have been a united bill t could have been something which we all could say of which we are proud. because of the process that we are using, does not take that place. in fact, madam speaker, what we are doing here is dume can --

duplicative. amar'e corps -- americorps, if you look at their enacting legislation, everything this program, which was designed to help public lands, especially healthy forests, everything this is now opened up to do is done by americorps. it's part of their program. why not just funnel all the money there? and avoid the duplication. what we are doing now is building a program who has no latitude, no restrictions on what their options are, no restrictions on their funding. this is the hole so wide you can drive a toyota prius through it because there is nothing involved that could stop it. that's not the way you do good legislation. this is not the way you do good legislation. but it could be. and it should have been. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, madam speaker. i have some speakers i would like to yield time to.

part of the process we also see today that we are going to experience today and experience them for a while is an effort on the part of my colleagues across the aisle to erase history. and to assume that everything that we are doing today is somehow misconstrued to increase the deficit and that it is a government takeover that is not bipartisanship. and we are at this place to take corrective steps legislatively, including this legislation, because we are working on a history, a history of deficit spending, a history of no priorities, and a history that although people want to eraise it from memory is there, and this is the reason that we are in the situation that we are right now. in terms of conspiracies, in terms of this legislation, the american camp association endorsed it, the national trust for public -- historic preservation endorsed it, the boys and girls club endorsed it, girl scouts of northern

california endorsed it, the wellness coalition endorsed it, the student conservation association endorsed it, hispanic federation endorsed it, the coalition of national park retirees endorsed it, and the national trust for public lands endorsed it. so i am assuming, and the many speakers, the joy of learning outside endorsed it. i am assuming they must also be part of this vast and in fairous conspiracy that's going on. -- and in a foreous -- in fairous could be spircy that's going on. with that i recognize dr. christensen for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. christensen: thank you, chairman grijalva, although i could be at home this weekend since i don't get to vote as a physician, a family doctor, and a person who has worked all my life, all my adult life to

ensure that people had access to health care, especially minority, people of color, those in our rural areas and territories, who have often been left behind, i am pleased to be here this weekend for this historic vote. chairman grijalva, i want to thank you for introducing this legislation and thank you for your leadership as chairman of the subcommittee on parks, recreation, and public lands and your leadership in preserving some of our nation's most important treasures. madam speaker, i am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor this morning in strong support of h.r. 1612, the public lands service corps act. i'm sure my park students are very much in support of this bill. in fact, superintendent hargrove and i have tried to set up exactly what this bill would do in st. thomas and st. john for several years. h.r. 1612 in expanding and reinvigorating an existing program addresses two important

needs. first it creates jobs. jobs that are so badly needed in our nation today. jobs in an age group that has the highest and most chronic unemployment. in the absence of decent job opportunities, they are lured into drugs and criminal activity that's threatening to destroy the fabric of many communities, communities such as mine. and then it helps to clear up a long-standing maintenance backlog in our nation's parks and public lands, but it also begins to re-establish a relationship between the people in the involved communities and the public lands in their area. if i can just speak about st. john for a moment, 2/3 of that island is national park. and while it is the anchor of tourism there, for the most part the native population are not major stakeholders in that important mainstay of our economy. and those are small communities, too many of our young people on st. john are in need of jobs and job training, especially those that don't require that they travel by boats to st. thomas every day. more than that, with the virgin

islands national park occupying so much of the island, it is critical that we make more st. johns an integral part of what happens there and begin to regain a sense of belonging and ownership with the rest of our nation that has been lost over the years. the same is true for south river and the other park lands in st. croix and historic castle island in st. thomas where those young men and women are also in need of job training and jobs. all those these -- the public land service corps jobs would be just entry level jobs in the beginning, i am sure that once our young people are provided with the jobs and the training and preserving our national treasures, that this bill would provide, they will want to go further and we will be building a cadre of new local park rangers and interpreters and other positions as well as management all the way -- may i have just 15 more seconds.

mr. grijalva: let me extend an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. christensen: thank you. we will be building a qadry of new local park -- cadre of new local park rangers and other positions as well as management all the way up to superintendents in the future. chairman grijalva, thank you for this bill. i am proud to support it. i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield three minutes for the gentlelady from california, ms. barbara lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. let me thank chairman grijalva for his leadership in bringing this bill to public land service corps act to the floor. and i want to thank you for bringing it to the floor and our leadership for allowing it to be brought to the floor today on such a historic day,

historic weekend. and congressman cri hal have a, i just want to salute you and congresswoman woolsey and all those who fought so hard for this health care reform bill for this weekend, especially for the public option. let me just say when we cast this vote this weekend, we will be casting a vote on behalf of all of those uninsured and underinsured, on we half -- behalf of all those who died prematurely because they did not have preventive health care, and we will be casting this vote this weekend on behalf of our children and grandchildren so that they may live longer and healthier lives. i'm very delighted that this bill is up this weekend so we would have a chance to talk about the importance of what we are doing within the context of this great bill. this bill will train and connect young adults to service opportunities on public lands,

putting a new generation of americans back to work finally. while instilling in them a great respect for america's legacy of conservation and stewardship. the work done by the public lands service corps will do more than restore our public lands. it will also protect and preserve our environment, improve infrastructure, and help to ensure the american public will always have access to the world's greatest recreational and scenic resources. the bill would also engage with noaa to allow young adults to serve near coastal and marine waters along our treasured coastlines such as those near my home in california in the bay area. and we have many, many young people, especially those with martin luther king freedom center, who work on many conservation projects. also they are learning about protecting our environment, ecology studies, nature studies.

so this bill is going to be of tremendous help to the young people in my district. perhaps -- but perhaps more importantly this bill will provide service opportunities for our youth to work in restoring and preserving our public lands during a time when young adults have been particularly hit hard by the economic downturn. we have to remember that the youth unemployment rate now stands at more than 20%. many low-income and minority youth populations face even greater challenges. african-american youth, latino youth, unemployment rates are now estimated to be as high as 42%. in light of these harsh economic realities, i am so pleased that h.r. 1612 would encourage federal agencies to prioritize outreach to underrepresented communities and populations and take steps to prepare participants -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lee: an additional 30 seconds. mr. grijalva: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker. let me just say that this bill would prioritize actually outreach to underrepresented communities and populations and would take steps to prepare participants for careers with those agencies or within related congregation field. simply put this bill could not come at a better time. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill and to provide the necessary funding to start this valuable program as soon as possible. let me just thank you, chairman grijalva, once again for your loweredship. . -- leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. let me yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capps: madam speaker, i rise in -- today in support of

h.r. 1612, the public lands service corps act, and as i do so, i note the rather unusual markup of this bill or vote -- and vote on this bill this afternoon here -- this morning here in our nation's capital on a saturday. we're not usually gathered here but that's because we have an historic opportunity tomorrow to cast a vote for major health care and health insurance reform legislation in the house of representatives. and it's interesting the way the various topics are interconnected. when i think of health we often think of people's health. but we can also think of the health and survival really of our environment and then i also believe that this is a jobs bill because this is a bill designed to put our young people to work, and that's a great deal to do what the subject very much on our mind these days with the slow economy and our great

unemployment rate. and as the colleague who preceded me mentioned the even higher unemployment rate among our young people, this legislation will allow more of them to go to work and go to work in very healthy settings, out in the fresh air, engaged in exercise, learning to appreciate their natural surroundings. and i believe that it really is a win-win all the way around. so let me address the legislation. this important bill would help prepare -- repair and restore our nation's public lands while also creating jobs for thousands of young americans. years of inadequate funding have left our public land management agencies with huge backlogs of labor-intensive work in our national parks, our forests, our wildlife refuges, and our historic sites. physical infrastructure is crumbling and the natural resources have been neglected. in many places such as my home state of california, the

effects of climate change are only magnifying the risks, coastal erosion and fragmented habitat. h.r. 1612 will help address all of these problems by expanding and strengthening the public lands corps. it will streamline the corps' management, modernize its scope and provide new tools to help the program accomplish its mission. it wills have expand the -- it will also expand it to the congress department agency which manage our coastal and marine systems and our national marine sanket wears. this -- sanctuaries. it will introduce people of a greater diversity of social, ethnic and cultural background the forests our public lands. not only as future employees but also as lifelong enthusiasts. and this bill will create jobs. h.r. 1612 will provide

meaningful training and employment to young people who especially need it now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. capps: 30 seconds. mr. grijalva: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. capps: while improving our cultural resources. as one who represents a national forest and a national marine sakt wear as well as a national -- sanctuary as well as a national park, i can attest to the public lands corps and the importance of this legislation. so i thank you, mr. grijalva, for introducing this very important bill and for your great leadership on this issue. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: madam speaker, may i inquire of the gentleman from arizona, my good friend, wrong on all the issues but still a great guy, have any additional speakers? mr. grijalva: i have one

speaker. mr. bishop: then i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. -- address the house. thank you very much, madam speaker, and to congressman grijalva. let me thank you for your leadership on this very important issue to congressman bishop as well for managing this legislation and acknowledging the concerns that may have been expressed. i offer maybe this rebuttal to some of the points that have been made in celebration of legislation that rell recognizes that we're not -- that really recognizes that we're not really here to support jobs and support the conservation association, if that's what it's been interpreted as, but part of

fixing part of america's crumbling infrastructure. and certainly our public lands need fixing. years of inadequate funding have left our public land agencies with huge backlogs of labor-intensive work on national park lands, wildlife refuges, historic sites and indian lands. as we watch america take advantage of visiting their capital, for example, to see the many monuments and sites that are here, they don't want to come and see monuments that have chipped surfaces or that are dangerous to visit. and this opportunity to implore our young people and to teach them integrity and character is a very important part of this legislation. i for one have spoken to my state park management entity asking them to look more carefully at the parks in inner cities, the opportunity for them to be designated national parks, and to be able to put more parks in the inner cities that are under the jurisdiction

of our federal government. of course, that analysis takes long, but i want to applaud my own city of houston that continuously looks to put public and open space for the many people that live in our community. houston expects to be the third largest city in the nation. green space, public opportunities to utilize parks is very important. so when i see a bill that is going to help affix the crumbling infrastructure, the physical crumbling infrastructure, natural and cultural resources that have been neglected and in many cases the effects of climate change are magnifying earlier problems such as fire risk, damage from insects and invasive species, cultural -- coastal erosion, i am in support of this legislation. i also come from the gulf coast region and have seen what happens to the deterioration and erosion of the gulf coast. in particular after hurricane ike, we're now trying to restore galveston and those coastal lands to be able to

provide for an economic engine. so this is a good bill. with a high rate of unemployment among african-american youth and youth around the country, the opportunity to work with their hands and minds is a positive step. this legislation will be part of the road map to help expand park service and ensure that our sites are maintained and kept at the level that they should. and i hope to be able to work with the chairman of this committee as i assess the needs of houston to be able to provide more green space in our community. i yield back and ask support for the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: need a distraction. no, i would once inquire of the gentleman from arizona if he has more speakers. if the gentleman from arizona is ready to close i am on this portion of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself whatever i take. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: the first the

gentlelady from texas -- not from -- i'll get to you in a second. the first gentlelady from california talked about how important it was to start the program. we are not starting anything new. we have a program. all we're doing is changing things in that program. the current program has specific dollar amounts going which will be reviewed and specific programmatic responsibilities, all of which were stripped out in this particular vision -- version. the gentlelady from texas actually i appreciate everything she said. she was right on. everything for which she argued that is necessary is what the original program was intended to do. the problem we have is -- and we could have easily, easily got along with the expansion of this program if they had actually allowed us to come up with some kind of limitations because unfortunately, as i mentioned before, what we have now done with this program, 75% of which was to go to make sure we have healthy forests, where

the actual priority is to go to public lands, you have taken out that language and we have simply replicated americorps. go on to the legislation that created that program. page 24 it shows what they can do. it has opened up as a possibility. page 24, where can they go, exactly the same thing. what we are doing is making a duplicate program which is already there when we had a program with a specific goal, a specific recommendation and we have taken out those specifics. now, i suggested that there is plenty of opportunity for abuse in this particular program if you don't try and limit it to what we want it to accomplish because we all agree on what we want it to accomplish. the unfortunate thing is the language in this bill doesn't say that. it doesn't specify that. and so indeed we can have instead people going in there to provide -- to provide not

jobs but internships for people to go in and have them give legal representation and engaging in policy. there is no problem doing it but not on the government's dime. i don't have a problem of having drinking parties. that's fine. but not on the government dime. i don't mind actually having an agency that has a program here in washington sponsored by the national park service but not if it's going to teach people how to lead protests and sit-ins. not on the government dime. you can do all of those but not subsidized by government funding. and that's what should be specified. that those type of activities should be beyond the opportunity and beyond the appropriation and beyond the concept of this program. that's what should have been in the bill. and huh done that we would all be singing kumbaya or anything

else. but this bill, as i said before, is somewhat of a metaphor. for everything that we have beening to for a large part of this session. and it's simply once again a bill that there were assurances made in the committee, that amendments would be applied to this bill for whatever reason -- and for whatever reason they are not. instead we are standing up here protesting a bill which should have been and could have been a great piece of legislation to move us forward towards a common goal. but for whatever reason it was not allowed to be written in that form. we are standing here on a bill that actually presents itself with a visual of why we need systemic change in this body. the vast majority of members to hear these arguments i think would say, yes, this is a logical limitation should be there. but as you look around, the vast majority of members are not on this floor right now. so far too often we do things in a vacuum of understanding

which is why this body needs systemic change in the process that we use to reach conclusions. nothing, nothing more than the -- the changes, nothing more than the process we're going through this weekend wreaks of the need for some kind of systemic change. because if we did that systemic change and the expectation were that people were here to listen to debate, they were there in the committees to hear testimony, they were there in the committees to hear the markup process, i am convinced that we could have a better product and the bipartisan product but the process does not encourage that. the process encourages the exact opposite. we have the process that has evolved in the long direction. and if anything else, this weekend should show that we need systemic change in the process. this bill, this program is still a decent program. and with some limitations on the amount of spending, some review on a regular period and some limitations on what the

product will be, what the kids will be working on as they go through these internships, we could have a very, very good, positive practice. and i hope before this bill actually goes all the way through the system those kind of limitations are put back in the bill so we can have something of which we can actually be proud. i urge defeat of this bill until those changes are made, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. and i rise to encourage support for h.r. 1612. part of the discussion today was to say from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is a bad time to spend money on this program because unemployment is high and the deficit is high. i would respond that it is the perfect time for such investment. this program is an investment in reducing unemployment among young people and in the long run will save money by preventing these maintenance

problems in our public lands from getting worse. i want to talk about what is in the bill. much of the limitations that were talked about by my good friend are not part -- some of the points he made are not even part of the legislation. but let's talk for a second what is -- what this bill does do. it will broaden the scope of the program to include more agencies within the department of interior, noaa within the commerce department. expand the purposes of this program to make clear that a central aim is to attract participants from diverse backgrounds who are underrepresented among visitors and managers of our public lands. require an establishment of coordinators with each agency eligible to participate in the program so that implementation of the program will be more uniform and efficient. authorizing federal agencies to enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit youth or conservation corps to improve these partnerships. establish criteria and methodology for training programs for all participants.

modernize the scope of eligible projects to include new challenges such as climate change and insect infestation. authorize participated agencies to provide housing for participants. that's what the program does do. if is -- it is it an appropriate time, it's a necessary time and it's an investment that will take huge dividends for our public lands and young people and i urge its adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate on the bill as amended has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered.

for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: madam speaker, i have an amendment made in order under the rule at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part c in house report number 111-445, offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1192, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: madam speaker, i rise today to offer what i believe is a noncontroversial amendment that would amend the public land service corps act to allow the secretaries to enter into arrangements with tribal governments in order to provide temporary housing for corps workers. this would be in addition to other federal agencies, states, local governments, or private organizations because tribal

governments are not included under the umbrella of any of those other categories, it's necessary to modify the bill's language to include them. tribal governments enjoy a unique government to government sovereign relationship with the united states. the -- tribal governments regularly enter into similar agreements with a variety of federal agencies and have done so for over 200 years. this change would not disturb precedent. throughout this bill tribal lands are designated as a place for young adults employed in this program to expend their efforts. it makes sense, then, that these tribes would be able to house some of the participants thereby enhancing the experience of these workers. not only would this program connect participants to the land, but housing them in tribal areas could enhance their cultural understanding and awareness. indian country is diverse as america itself. so obviously housing these individuals would not be ideal on some reservations. it is important, though, to include willing tribal governments in this program as

native americans are historically some of the best stewards of environment and the potential for cultural interchange in this program would certainly have great benefit for both the national lands conservation workers and the tribes. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment although i am not opposed to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you. madam speaker, this amendment would ensure that the tribes would be among the governments and groups which the secretaries would contract to provide temporary housing for corps participants. we support this amendment and appreciate the gentleman's efforts. and appreciate the correction of an oversight. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i thank the gentleman very much. in conclusion i again yield myself the balance of my time.

madam speaker, i urge all members to vote yes on this amendment. again this is a simple modification that will allow native american tribes to enter into agreements to house the employees of the public land service corps just like federal agencies face, localities, and private organizations. this designation will give the departments of agriculture and interior more housing option for these workers and will allow the tribes to be more fully engaged in the program. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam speaker. i would also urge support for the amendment and would also note that the health care reform act we are expecting to take up tomorrow includes the most sweeping changes to indian health care in decades. long overdue. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. grijalva: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: on that amendment i ask for a recorded vote. yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 1192, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part c of house report number 111-445, offered by mr. bishop of utah. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1192, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, each will control five

minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. this is a very simple amendment. easily understandable one. simply has two parts to it. number one, you continue the funding authorization that is in the current law, and number two, you had a five-year sunset period in there. as i said earlier when we were talking about the base bill, there is nothing wrong with the things that we should be doing, but there is something wrong when we refuse to periodically exercise our legislative responsibility to review those things that we are currently doing. we do it all the time. endangered species act has a sunset, elementary and secondary act has a sunset, all of which are designed to have us come back here and re-evaluate what we are doing to make sure our priorities have stayed the same. there's nothing wrong with the sunset. it should be standard fare in

most of our pieces of legislation. if we are now creating this bill which replicates amar'e corps one more time, there is nothing wrong with saying let's review it every five years to make sure we are still going on the path we originally determined. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek rick nation? mr. grijalva: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you. madam speaker, under existing law, funding for public land corps is capped at $12 billion annually. the bill before us, h.r. 1612, would remove this cafment the amendment offered by my colleague, mr. bishop, would not only leave the cap in place but also force the program to sunset in five years. madam speaker, as we all know when the republicans controlled this congress and the white house, they presided over the largest increase in federal spending in the history of this nation. amendments like this one provide important clues as to why that happened.

are we honestly worried about run away spending on youth job training and education programs? is it imperative that we clamp down on efforts to put young people to work repairing trails and visitor centers used by american families when they visit in parks and public lands? of course not. this is the definition of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. republicans want to cap and sunset, popular, effective, and bipartisan jobs program, when they controlled the entire federal budget, they spent like sailors on leave. big spending, run away spending, all those analogies fit. this is a poor attempt to appear fiscally responsible after years and years of irresponsible free spending. this amendment is not necessary. the fact that this program is already incredibly popular an enactment of h.r. 1612 will make it an even bigger success. many members will continue pushing to put young people to work and give them a job training they so desperately

seek. some in the minority can continue coming to the floor and nipping at the heels of these bills as we pass them. the american people will see which members are serious about addressing unemployment and the condition of our parks and public lands, and which members are just trying to mask that legacy of irresponsible spending. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: can i ask if there are any other speakers? if not, i'm ready to close on the amendment as well. if i could, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. bishop: once again the process here is not about whether a program is popular or not. endangered species act is pop pew already within certain groups. higher ed has popularity. elementary education has popularity. the issue here is do we adequately review these particular programs to see where we are and what our priorities ought to be? and if we don't, we have a tendency of losing those in the moreas of the rest -- morass of the boddy, the plethora of

organization that is we simply have. this does not technically sunset the program. it sunsets the authorization for the appropriations for the program. the program goes on until further action is taken by this particular body. but it is the sequence that we use to try and see should we redo, should we recontinue, should we at least re-evaluate what we are supposed to be? when we don't do those kind of re-evaluation, we abrogate legislative responsibility and we pass it on to an compkive branch which sometimes -- executive branch which sometimes has a checkered response in its oversight responsibilities in these particular areas. madam speaker, this is the right thing to do. it's one of the things that could easily turn a bill that is right now partisan into a bipartisan bill so we don't have to look back and say what we did we could have done so much better. i yield back the balance of my time. i urge approval of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i urge defeat of

the amendment. and remind review of this legislation is conducted every year by appropriators and the committees of jurisdiction are not prevented this legislation from conducting oversight of the program. with that let me urge defeat of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. bishop: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 1192, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed.

pursuant to house resolution 1192, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part c of house report 111-445 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. bishop of utah. amendment number 2 by mr. cole of oklahoma. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first votes in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment printed in part c of house report 111-445 by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part c of house report number 111-445, offered by mr. bishop of utah. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered.

members will record their votes by electrocd"h5)p's$p !'s s$s#hv

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote this ethe yeas are 227, the nays are 180. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded volt on the amendment printed in house report 11-445, by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two printed in house report 111-445, offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. dvhvj$st$$ @@@@@

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 402, the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 1192, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill to amend the public land act of 1993 to extend the authorization of the secretaries of the agriculture, commerce and the interior --

>> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the clerk: and scenic resources training a new generation of public land managers and enthusiasts as to the value of public service. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. will members please remove their conversations from the floor and the aisles. members will please take their seats. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming rise? bar registered sex

offenders from supervising these young people. the protections included in this program are taken directly. they shall not be allowed access to young people in the -- in americorps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. members will please remove their conversations from the aisles. the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam speaker. i'll get through this if everybody will just hold their

conversations for just a bit. by voting for this motion to recommit, you will prohibit sex offenders from participating in this program and will be voting to provide basic protections for young people. second, this motion restores the current emphasis on combating the threats of beetle infestation and wild fires devastating vast tracts of public forest lands. without this motion,ing combating this tragedy will receive no funding whatsoever. the healthy forest act pass passed the house with strong bipartisan support yet this bill would erase the emphasis provided for healthy forest act activities in existing law. this is the wrong approach and a step backwards. wild fire protection and -- prevention and battling beetle and other infestation should be a priority to protect local communities and our national forests.

these activities must be continued, not eliminated as this bill would do. voting for the motion to recommit will ensure this occurs. third this motion would prevent misdirection of grant funds by requiring that the projects funded make improvements to public land rather than being used for political advocacy or junk elts like the organic microbeer bus tour we heard about from mr. bishop. this program is billed as a means to connect young people to the public lands so this motion simply requires that funded projects occur on public lands and improve these lands. first and lastly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house is not in order. members will please remove their conversations from the floor. . the gentlewoman is recognized.

. >> if you are going to sue the government, you under-the- collect grant money from taxpayers. this will ensure that political advocacy groups that sue the government are not supported by taxpayer dollars. this motion to recommit includes four commonsense improvements to the bill. you urge my colleagues to vote to prevent sex offenders from getting access to young people through this program to vote to restore the bill to the priority status of wildfire prevention activities under the bipartisan healthy forest act, to vote to ensure grant funds are spent on work actually on our public lands and not bus tours, and to vote to prevent grant money from going to groups who file lawsuits against the government. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: thank you, madam

speaker. i rise to claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: the motion to recommit would expand the public lands program to -- the current bill would expand it to a dozen agencies. by restricting the use of the money that would be appropriated for the legislation, you effectively put 3/4 of it into forest activities thereby eliminating the opportunity to be able to engage young people in a variety, in a comprehensive look at opportunities in our public lands and agency. the vast majority of the adults who participate in the program are federal employees. the oversight -- it is their responsibility of the agency. n.p.s. rangers, forest rangers already get full background checks and full clearance.

they already get full f.b.i. checks. the minority failed to raise this issue during committee, or at the committee on rules. and the other issue is the issue of due process, to prohibit an individual, organization from being able to seek redress in the court of law, i think is not only undemocratic but sincerely wrong. the motion to recommit basically hamstrings the legislation, prevents it from being effective. it's a hodgepodge of items thrown in that were not before the rules committee and were not before the discussion on the full committee. i would urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. members and staff will please remove their conversations from the floor. members to my right at the back of the chamber will please remove their conversations to the floor. from the floor. the gentleman will resume. mr. grijalva: thank you. let me point out thus far only 7.5 million has ever been appropriated for public land corps and all that money was earmarked forest health.

under the -- this legislation that is before us today, it is our expectation that more funds would be available for all eligible projects. forest health as well as other programs. and finally, we never hear the end of it from the other side the need to take care of lands. this program does precisely that. the motion to recommit hamstrings the program, reduces its effectiveness, narrows the opportunity for young people in terms of where they work and what training and what education they will receive. it duplicates the process by which people are checked that are going to be working with young people in this program, and presents and neglects full redress under our laws for individuals and organizations. i think those three items have nothing to do with the legislation. they are there to hamper the legislation. and i would urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit, to pass this legislation, and get a full, meaningful employment opportunity for the young

people that are right now suffering the most from a lack of jobs and for the young people that most need a second chance. this legislation is about opportunity. this legislation is about saving our public lands and educating our young people. the motion to recommit is about preventing that. i would urge all my members not to be duped into that presumption to go forward with the bill and pass the legislation as is and oppose the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. lummis: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: i ask for a vorded vote. -- recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, 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: on this vote -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 387. the nays are 21. the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: madam speaker, pursuant to instructions of the house and the motion to recommit, i report the bill h.r. 1612 back to the house

with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grijalva of arizona, page 7, line 18, inrt on public lands after resources, page 15, line 17 -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading, madam speaker. the the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor please say aye. those opposed please say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. . the clerk: to expand the offices of se secretaries of agriculture, commerce, and the interior to expand the

archaeological and other resources, to train a new generation of public land enthusiasts. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. grijalva: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. grijalva: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, 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: on this vote, the yeas are 288, the nays are 116, the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. 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 later. for what purpose -- for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4887 as amend. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4887, a bill to amend the internal revenue code

of 1986 to ensure that health coverage provided by the department of defense is treated as minimal essential coverage. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4887. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. speaker, under h.r. 3590, as passed by the senate, individuals are responsible for obtaining minimal essential health care or pay a small penalty. the senate bill states that anyone with ineligible employer coverage meets this requirement. the coverage that is provided today for the members of our

armed services and their families and for military retirees and their families satisfies this requirement. in an abundance of caution, h.r. 4887 was introduced by our distinguished chairman, mr. skelton to reaffirm this result. i now will reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today the house is considering h.r. 4887, the tricare affirmation act. while i support the bill we have before us, i am disappointsed in another display of rushing the process. when speaker pelosi said we need to pass the health care bill so we can find out what's in it, this is fortunately one that was found before it was passed. think how many other hundreds and hundreds of possible errors there may be in that bill because of being forced through quickly and being ill considered. moreover, as a former member of the 82nd airborne division, i am deeply disappointed that we

had to leave our veterans, those who have served our country, would actually become victims of a policy that the congress is enacting inadvertently, not by any mall list aforethought. i certainly thank and share my greatest appreciation with the distinguished chairman, mr. skelton of the armed services committee, who i served with for several years, for capturing this and correcting this wrong. the bill wasn't added to the schedule until close to midnight last night. beyond the immediate process issue, the addition of this bill to the calendar points to a troubling future if the senate health care bill passes the house tomorrow. we are many votes away from health care reform becoming law, but already as i mentioned we are seeing fundamental flaws in the senate bill that require amendment. as we all know the health care bill that we'll consider tomorrow contains a new requirement that every single american in this country enroll in a health care plan that the government approves. president obama said that if you like your doctor, you can keep him. if he approves. now we have the i.r.s. and we

have federal agencies that are going to get into our private affairs. now it's affecting our veterans. if an individual does not have this coverage, they will be subject to a penalty and even the possibility of prosecution through the i.r.s. h.r. 4887 esentencely amends the senate health care bill to clair phi all tricare plans are considered as minimal acceptable coverage under the bill. it is the least we can do for our veterans. defining tricare as such because it leaves enrollees from the individual mandate in the bill. it is a complete medical care program for active duty members and retirees of all seven uniform services and their dependents. it is currently opened to about 9.3 million potential beneficiaries. active duty military, their spouses, and dependents are automatically enrolled in tricare prime. retirees can choose between tricare prime or two other options. then a tricare for life.

these beneficiaries are enrolled in medicare. but tricare serves as a secondary payer. unfortunately in the senate health care bill, democrats do not deem tricare programs for service members and military retirees under age 65 to provide minimum acceptable coverage. h.r. 4887 would clarify these programs, make sure they are included in this definition. it's surprising to me these programs were left out originally. this is an important change to make but i think this is only a foreshadowing of what is to come for hardworking americans. the senate health care reform bill has not even been signed into law and we already have to fix it. if democrats were originally willing to adversely impact the health care coverage of these americans who honorably served our country, you have to wonder whose health care is safe? these oversights occur because this process is too big, too fast, and being done against the will of the american people. i support this amendment. it's critical that we protect our military families.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield two minutes to chairman ike skelton who has worked so hard, so many years on behalf of the veterans of this country. two minutes to mr. skelton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. skelton: i certainly thank the gentleman from michigan. mr. speaker, it's commonly known fact that i oppose the health care reform bill as it exists currently and will vote against it tomorrow. but my duty as the chairman of the armed services committee compels me to ensure that the health care of our brave service men and women, our military retirees, and all of their family members are protected if the bill does indeed pass. in the health care bill currently under consideration in congress, which originated in the senate, tricare and the

nonprompted fund health plans, programs that provide health care for these individuals, will meet the minimum requirements for individual health insurance coverage. and no tricare or n.a.f. health plan beneficiary will be required to purchase additional coverage beyond what they already have. however, to reassure our military service members and their families and make it perfectly clear that they will not be negatively affected by this legislation, my bill, h.r. 487 -- 48887 explicitly states -- 48887 expolice italy states in law that these health plans meet the minimum requirements for individual health insurance. our brave men and women in uniform provide us with first class protection. it's our obligation, it's our obligation to provide them and their families with first class health care in return.

every day our troops risk their lives to stand up for us on the battlefield and now i ask my colleagues, no matter what the position you may have on health care reform itself, to join me in standing up for our service members and their families. nobody knows what the fate of the health care bill will be tomorrow. but by supporting this bill that's before us right now, h.r. 4887, we will at least know that we have protected those men and women who sfies their lives to protect us -- sacrifice their lives to protect us. even if the health reform bill passes, the coverage provided by tricare and the nonappropriated fund health plans will be properly defined in law as meeting the minimum requirements for individual health insurance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: thank you, mr.

speaker. i now recognize the distinguished ranking member of the armed services committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mckeyon: -- mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of house resolution 4887, which would try to fix a significant flaw in the democratic health care reform bill by including the department of defense's tricare program in what is considered minimum essential coverage for the purposes of the individual mandate in the health care bill. mr. speaker, while i applaud chairman skelton for taking this step, i am deeply concerned and aware that it does not go far enough to protect tricare from the ravages of obamacare. the simple truth is the senate health care bill still leaves tricare, the world class health care program that takes care of 9.2 million of our men and women in uniform and their

families, and retirees and their families, open to the whim of bureaucrats outside of the department of defense who may change the program as they see fit. is this what we want for the men and women who lay their lives on the line every day to protect this great nation? last summer the white house made two promises to america's armed forces and their families. that the health reform legislation that's being considered would enable those who are covered by tricare to meet the shared responsibility requirement for individuals to have insurance. thereby exempting such members of the armed services. and their families from being assessed pements. this is the explicit promise the present -- that the senate health care bill fails to meet. the chairman's resolution is an attempt to meet that commitment. but what it definitely does is point out the flaws in the senate bill, the senate health care bill. the second promise the president made is that the

secretary of defense would continue to maintain sole authority over tricare. chairman skelton's language today does not address this promise. that is why mr. buyer, the ranking member on the veterans' affairs committee, and i filed and will offer later today language at the rules committee that will meet both of these promises. we have been hearing since last summer many promises that this problem would be fixed. mr. buyer and i even offered similar amendments to the house version of the bill passed last fall. our attempts were rebuffed and the military service organizations were given assurances by the democratic leadership that tricare would be protected in a conference report that never came. now we see this legislation that appeared in dark of night. we have been told there is no cost associated with the language. we cannot confirm that. history is ripe with examples of house legislation that does not survive in the senate. in other words, there is no

guarantee that what the president finally signs will protect medicare. mr. speaker, i was told by a vet van -- veteran one of the problems we had in the vietnam war was pilots became so fixated on the target that they ultimately crashed into the target. that is what i see happening with this health care bill that the democratic leadership and the president are pushing. they are so fixated on getting something passed that they are making so many mistakes that we are not going to be able to fix them all. i will support my chairman's efforts today, but i will continue to work toward a comprehensive fix. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new hampshire. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. shea-porter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his legislation. as a member of the armed services, i am proud to be an original co-sponsor.

mr. speaker, we have a solemn responsibility to provide our service members with the care and services that they are due. they risk their lives in service to our nation and it is imperative we keep our promises to them. this is not a democratic or republican responsibility, and as an advocate for the members of our military and their families, and i might add as a former military spouse myself, it's troubling for me that throughout the debate on health care reform that tricare would be included as one of the topics of the various misinformation campaign. this bill will ensure that those members of our armed services can keep their tricare coverage. i am proud to have stood in support of our service members in the armed services committee for -- preventing increases in tricare co-pays. i'm pleased the chairman through this legislation has given us all the opportunity to reaffirm not only importance of try care but that under our health reform legislation that these benefits will remain as they are.

thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. now, mr. speaker, i would like to recognize the distinguished ranking member of the veterans' affairs committee, a veteran of desert storm and retired united states army colonel, mr. buyer of indiana. for as much time as he shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. buyer: how much time the minority has? the speaker pro tempore: 13 minutes remaining. mr. buyer: thank you very much. i am first of -- first of all i would like to applaud buck mckeon and ike skelton for their efforts along with mr. levin permit this bill to be considered, but we haven't gone far enough. now, i -- it's kind of what happens when we rush or go too fast around here, we get sloppy

in our drafting. now, when the bill that was passed here in the house, there was general authority provisions under the secretaries of d.o.d. and v.a. to ensure that those health systems would be protected. the authorities, their general provision authorities of the secretaries would be protected. that language was not in the senate bill. the senate bill, for which is now coming over here interestingly enough, which is about to be deemed, pretty interesting the word, know about the word deem, it comes from the old english origin to dom. to dom was from judges. it means to make judgment. and then in the 17th century judges actually then began to make rapid judgments, they called them deemers. the origin of to dom, two words, to deem and to doom. fascinating. so right now in the language that was going to be deemed while the bill under consideration will in fact

cover the tricare, because right now it covers just tricare for life, there is about a $30 billion per year price tag on tricare. for those of whom who are active duty or guardsmen or reserves who are brought to active duty to include their dependent, and that $30 billion price tag, that's a lot of money, over 10? that's around $300 bill. i don't know how we can exclude them, but we are going to bring them in. what i'm going -- about to ask of mr. levin is, we also have this commitment, this commitment from the leadership, from the speaker, from the leaders of the dominant committees of labor, ed and labor and ways and means and appropriations and energy and commerce to protect the veterans programs. now, in that language that's coming from the senate to here for which we are not going to get to vote on nor amend, it says that we will take care of the chapter 17 veterans programs. .

but in chapter 17 there are other programs for survivors and dependents which would not be cover. their programs which presently exist would not be under the minimum essentials. who are they? the widows, the survivors and the orphan children. that would include an agent orange vietnam veteran's whose dependent has spina bifida would not be covered. i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman rill state his inquiry. >> my inquiry would be this, the bill under suspension was dropped last night we had to immediately respond to all of this and i have dropped a bill just in the last hour, i apologize to my democrat friends, i know you're just getting a chance to look at this, my parliamentary inquiry is, how would i be able to ask for an immediate consideration of this bill under suspension?

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman speaking to a separate measure other than the one before the house? mr. buyer: yes, as a separate measure, how can i call this bill to immediate consideration? the speaker pro tempore: the speaker's policy as stated dictates coordination with leadership on both sides. mr. buyer: at the conclusion of this bill, could i ask for unanimous consent for immediate consideration of this bill to protect the survivors and orphans of our veterans? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is constrained to recognize such a request only if both leaderships have been consulted. mr. buyer: further parliamentary inquiry. does that mean that at the

conclusion of this vote, the chair would not recognize me for a unanimous consent request in the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. buyer: let me ask -- >> let me suggest this. -- mr. levin: let me suggest this. the provision in question here, it doesn't take effect until 2014. what is our purpose here today is not to correct a flaw but to reaffirm so there can be zero question. i would suggest this. that we proceed and i want to assure you, i think i can, on behalf of everyone concerned, that we will look at your bill and we will work with you and if there's agreement we will proceed expeditiously. so -- i would hope that would

work for you. i just want to assure you of our good will on this. if there is an issue that has to be concerned, has to be considered, we'll do that the problem right now is, it's impossible, we just received this, to understand whether or not it might have an impact in terms of the overall bill. the overall bill has to be scored. as you know, mr. buyer, it's very technical. let me suggest that we proceed and give you the assurance that we will look at this and proceed expeditiously. mr. buyer: reclaiming my time on the parliamentary inquiry, would it be made in order under a unanimous consent request on a suspension that the gentleman could amend, in other words, could i offer a unanimous consent request to amend to include the general authority language that is very similar

to which the house had already passed previously under the health bill? mr. levin: the manager is constrained to withdraw and reoffer. mr. buyer: i accept your good faith. you could withdraw this bill, since -- we are moving quickly and you're correct, it's highly technical. so we only got to see this bill a few days ago. so mr. skelton and mr. mckeon, their staffs didn't get to fully cover it. it's immediately dropped at midnight we immediately bring it to the floor. we then have to react. as gentlemen, why don't we pause, under the rules, further parliamentary inquiry, we can withdraw the suspension, we can work and then the gentleman can bring it back in good faith. i would ask for the gentleman under the comity of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will look to the majority manager for any change in plans.

mr. buyer: i ask of the gentleman, would the gentleman consider to withdraw the suspension to allow us to include the general authority provisions and correct the errors in the bill. mr. levin: let me suggest the reason why i think we need to proceed with this bill. we can accomplish what you want to accomplish by taking up your bill separately. the purpose of this bill is not to correct a flaw. the purpose of it is simply to reaffirm what should already be clear. yorning in this period of time that we could look at your bill and be sure it would have no impact in terms of the overall legislation. i know that this bill will have no such effect. i know that this bill will have no such affect. i'm not sure of yours because we've just received it. let me just offer again in the best of good faith that we will

take up -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will note the colloquy is on the clock. mr. buyer: i want to reclaim my time. the gentleman's position is you have chosen not to withdraw the bill to correct the errors but you want to proceed. mr. levin: in truth, i don't think it's a question of correcting an error. mr. buyer: let me reclaim my time. we have a really, really large distinction here. because the bill that is about to be deemed, we don't even have the right to vote on. this is what's blowing my mind here. those of us who have worn the uniform, we don't fight for any bounty of our own we fight for liberty, for freedom, the right to speak and the right to vote. and we're going to be denied the right to vote on a senate bill? nor do we have the opportunity to amend? and to say there are not error whence we move this fast we don't allow the deliberative process to be used, i'm pleading with you, mr. levin,

i'm pleading with you. the bill that's before us does not -- only covers tricare for life. i know this stuff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will be reminded to address the chair. mr. buyer: i apologize. mr. levin, i apologize. i'm challenged here. i drafted tricare for life, i understand this program, this bill only covered tricare for life. individual whors in tricare, it's not considered a -- individuals who are in tricare, it's not considered a minimum essential program. i know you didn't intend to that. why don't we correct, make sure we correct chapter 17 to protect survivors and dependents? it's an error. i'm not going to say you intentionally meant to leave out widows and orphans, i don't believe that. but we should if you're going to correct it on tricare, let's take care of the veteran taos. i just plead for the gentleman to stop and pause while we're in consideration here, let's

amend this and do it right. that's my plea. i also want to let you know we do things substantively and we also do things politically. there's a response. letters are coming in, emails are coming in right now from the v.s.o.'s. the veterans service organizations, pretty upset. pretty upset. whenever we move fast, we're sloppy and people get hurt in the process. this is not one of our finest hours. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to -- members are reminded to address the chair and not other members. the chair will also remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifest case of -- manifestation of approval or disapproval, or proceedings or audible conversation is a violation of the rules of the house. the gentleman from kentucky.

>> i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, i support the health reform bill this body will consider tomorrow. yet section 1501 of the senate bill needs to be modified to assure the insurance our brave men and women in uniform has qualifies, as, quote, minimum essential coverage, unquote, under the new law. i believe tricare and the nonappropriated fund health care will meet the individual requirements for insurance coverage in the health care bill. yet like mr. skelton, i believe this legislation should explicitly state that these health plans meet the minimum threshold. as chairwoman of the military personnel subcommittee, i'm a strong proponent of the tricare system and do not want that great benefit threatened in any

way by health care reform in the united states. fixing section 1501 of the senate bill will help achieve this goal and will remove any ambiguity for men and women in uniform and for my colleagues who do not believe the current bill goes far enough to protect those who serve. mr. speaker, this language to protect tricare originally passed this house education and labor committee on a bipartisan basis. i remember it. i was there. i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put aside politics for this vote, for this one vote, and help pass a measure that will allow our men and women in uniform to focus on their mission, not their health insurance. i urge a yes vote on this measure and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. >> may i inquire how much time is remaining on our side.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has eight minutes remaining, the gentleman from michigan has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. speaker. now i'd like to recognize another distinguished member of the veterans committee, an air force veteran, the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. stearns: i thank the distinguished chairman. the bottom line, this is the bottom line, the senate language in the health care bill does not protect v.a. and department of defense health care systems from interference by other federal agencies such as health and human services. we need to have the buyer-mckeon bill part of this package or you're going to leave out a whole segment of veterans who are under tricare, not to mention survivors and

dependents covered under this. this is extremely important to american veterans. i urge you democrats who are in the majority to reconsider mr. buyer's simple request to make part of your bill today immediately as much as possible to amend it so that we include the buyer language which is 4894. it's not a major thing to do here. we can do that. mr. stel cohn here earlier said he's against the health care bill. he emphatically said he's going to vote no. i understand that. he feels that the democrat health care bill is not something he can support. he's chairman of the armed services committee he understands that passage of this rule that we're going to talk about later will deem package of the entire health care bill on america. but then here we are trying in desperation because this is a farce, this health care bill, because it strips tricare from the military veterans, it hurts

survivors and dependents, now in a charade here of a farce, they're trying to amend a bill that has never passed. think of that. this bill that we're going to vote on the skelton bill is amending a bill that has not even passed. i question the constitutionality of the -- and the procedure here's. the health care bill is not going to protect the department of defense military people under tricare and veterans. now, why is this occurring? i think we realize because the democrats moved too quickly and they're penalizing our veterans and so the chairman of the armed services committee is against it, more importantly, he's here with this bill and i think all of us should understand without passage of the buier-mckeon bill which is 4894, the bill has been dropped, to amend the patient protection and affordable care to ensure appropriate treatment of department of veterans' affairs and department of defense health programs. this is a simple statement. but it has huge implications.

so mr. levin i urge you to reconsider and make sure that part of this mckeon bill is language of the buyer-mckeon and i close by saying, the reason why we're here today is because the bill was put together improperly and it's just an affront to our veterans, to our military retirees that they are going to be affected by this health care bill. the speaker pro tempore: members are once again reminded to address the chair and not individual members. the gentleman from michigan. . the speaker pro tempore: mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: i yield to the gentleman. mr. buyer: i in consultation with the ways and means committee, a gentleman i respect, i think the best approach is we'll vote on your bill and ask the minority

leader along with the -- the majority leader and the speaker and you can do your due diligence on the policy aspects to make sure that things can get corrected and that maybe we can call then for immediate consideration of the buyer-mckeon bill. i think that's a good approach. and i yield to the gentleman. mr. levin: i agree. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will once again remind members to speak through the chair and not to individual members. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. levin: i have the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: yes, you do. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: as we revisit this event, we are doing something important. correcting an egregious wrong that was done by oversight to not fully cover our veterans. the fact that tricare would not

fall into the so-called minimally accepted coverage leads me back to the false standard that's set in the beginning on this bill in the first place. i was among other things in the military an assault helicopter pilot. one of the things we learned as young aviators is accidents normally didn't happen because of one big thing. normally an accident would happen and several of my close friends paid the ultimate price in this, was because several little things would begin to pile up. small events. things unseen. the factor of the environment began to process, the more they would pile up. they became uncontrollable. not noticing power, not noticing air speed, not noticing their rate of descent, their al tidtude, visual references, the bottom line is we are doing the same thing now. except we are doing it with one of the largest and most sweeping bills in the history of this country. we are rushing headlong without

even a week, 72 hours for a bill this big? give me a break. let's think about the reality of what we are doing rushing headlong to do the largest transfer of power to the executive branch in the history of the united states. this is about turning us into a different nation. this is about stepping beyond article 1 of the constitution to deem, to deem what? we are fixing a small mistake. i guarantee you there are hundreds of others. deeming actually is pronouncing something that isn't as if it were done for all practical purposes and was designed from the legislative perspective for simple correction. let us deem everybody good health, that has about the same effect in the eyes of the american people. if we are dealing with veterans let's deem world peace so there won't be anymore risk internationally? you see the absurdity of this argument presented over and over and for the thousands of americans outside this building when we stand in here trying to work together to fix a small piece, there are hundreds and other things piling up. remember what the speaker said.

the speaker said we have to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it. in the name of heaven, shouldn't we know what's in it before it even comes to the floor for a vote? i demand to know the justice in that. in ramming a piece of legislation through here that is going to change the lives of our children and grandchildren. you ask the people dyeing in hospitals in england and waiting 18 months for a bypass surgery, and the veterans who will come forward who will not have health care on this because of a tell fix, we are hiring over 100,000 new government bureaucrats and not making the changes that the rest of the country uses. every time in the ways and means committee we try to offer those changes, they were rejected. think about this for a moment. i don't want the most important thing that we are handling in this administration to become a train wreck waiting to happen when we see all of the events beginning to pile up. we need to slow the overall bill down. the fact that we would have to

do this. the fact that thousands of people are demonstrating tells us that there's more to this than simply giving people health care. with that i yield a one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, there's something else going on here, too. so the skelton bill passes. without the buyer mc-mckean yofment then the health care bill comes tomorrow. we vote on tomorrow night and it passes. but it still, the veterans would still be without care because this bill, that's passing here, has to go to the senate. the senate could make some changes. then it's going to come back to the house. so you are going to have a bill, a health care bill out there, standing by itself, that's passed, gone to the president, signed into law, that does not protect veterans on tricare. you should be very concerned about that. i think the american people should be concerned that our veterans who are at two wars

today are not going to be protected because you are delaying the enforcement of the rigorous understanding what this bill is about. so just simply passing this today on the suspension will not mean the veterans are protected. it still has to go to the senate, comes back to the house before it's signed by the president. mr. davis: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 14 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from kentucky has one minute remaining. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i'll go ahead and close with these final remarks. next year will be the 30th anniversary of my graduation from the united states military academy. and when i'm back there seeing these men and women who have served this country so -- in so many distinguished ways, through such a time of peace and war and turbulence, the one thing that i want to be able to look in their eyes and say that we did as a congress, not simply me, is that we served their needs, their family

needs, the needs of their soldiers, the needs of veterans in general, and it is clear from the overall legislation that we are seeking to amend before it even becomes law, although i think that's actually in question if we are not going to vote on the senate bill, we need to slow this process down and stop the senate bill from being forced through this house, this reconciliation process, and go back to square one and do this step by step and get it right the first time rather than make directions. i thank the chairman of the armed services committee, the chairman of the ways and means committee for bringing this critical fix forward. there are many more. let's get to those. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i want to make two points clearly and very forcefully.

vet rans health, veterans are protected and will be protected. we are glad to bring our record before the world. where this party that i belong to has been in terms of protecting veterans and veterans' health. i just want to say a word about that. because i have been here now for some years, and a few years ago the party that i belonged to when we had the power, took the steps to make sure that the health of veterans was protected, indeed enhanced, what we did was to pass billions of dollars worth in programs to make sure that veterans in this country were protected as to their health care needs. that is absolutely clear. no veteran needs to be worried about their health care. no one covered by tricare needs

to be worried about whether that will be in effect. no one. this is done simply to reassure in terms of the language. it is not to fix a flaw. it's to reassure. indeed, it's being brought for the very reason that we feared that some people might decide to misstate what the reality was. the reality is that we are simply reassuring. there is no flaw to fix, period. so no one in any place, any veteran or anybody in their family needs to worry about our dedication or the impact of this legislation. that's point one. number two, i think what's being done here, what's being said here is pretty clear.

the argument isn't really over veterans' health. we are all dedicated to sustaining that. it isn't over tricare. we are dedicated to sustaining -- improving it wherever possible. what we hear on the other side instead are speeches and words about the reconciliation bill. you don't like it. i'm not sure i want to carry on much longer a debate over the health care bill, sir. mr. davis: if the gentleman would yield for a few seconds i would point out that intact tricare for life was excised from the senate bill. mr. levin: the senate bill, we want it to be 100% sure that nobody would misstatists impact -- miss state its impact. don't misstate it. that's the purpose of this. instead after you talk about

veterans health, you begin to talk about the reconciliation bill. now, we'll debate that tomorrow. but we should not use any question about coverage for veterans as a reason to attack the reconciliation bill. i support it. i think it will have a major positive impact. you used all kinds of words about a different nation, about rushing headlong. that has nothing to do with this bill. i think you are completely wrong about this being a different nation. you raised it so i'll say a few words. i'll say a few words. what this is going to do is to continue the path of this nation. to make sure that health care can be afforded. to make sure that health care is spread to everybody. it's not a different nation. it's continuing the best in our

nation. so we are not rushing headlong. we have been you canning -- talking about health care for a century in this country. i said at the rules committee, my first political experience, as i remember it, was as a kid passing out leaflets for the dad of john dingell. his father introduced a health care bill, how many decades ago , and before him others. going back to teddy roosevelt. no huge radical. so now decades later we come to a moment when we can step up to the plate and you call it a different nation. no, i say it's in the best traditions of the united states of america. so this is simply a bill to reassure. don't use it as an opportunity to talk about something else. we want to say clearly to the

veterans of this country and to the families of those veterans, to everybody who is part of that family, that their health care is going to be protected. that's the purpose of this legislation. i now yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4887, as amended. 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 bill -- mr. levin: i ask for the recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. levin: question. 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 proceedings on this motion will be postponed.