lifetime limits on benefits. it gives back to insurance companies discrimination author against women. these are concrete reasons to vote no on this repeal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield to a member of the energy and commerce committee, our friend from marietta, georgia, dr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have heard a lot of arguments on the other side of the aisle in regard to the $230 billion cost. and on our side of the aisle of course only in america can something actually cost $1.15 trillion in eliminating it that all of a sudden costs $230 billion. yes, ms. slaughter, only in america, only in this congress, numbers do lie. let me just say that what we

have been talking about on this side of the aisle, of course, is the voice of american people. it's about 3,000 years ago that a little shepard boy walked into that valley of death looking up at all those philistines and that nine-foot giant goliath who had that coat of maile, sword, and javelin, what did david have? a pouch and handful of stones. he hit that giant right between the head, brought him to his knees, and cut off the head of the snake. that pouch and those little pebbles represent the voice of the american people. that's what we have on this side of the aisle. that's why we are going to pass h.res. 9 and we are going to pass h.r. 2 next week and we are going to deliver our promise to the american people to eliminate, to repeal obamacare, the american people spoke loudly. they don't like this bill. the democratic majority in the senate and the president have one last chance to make amends. i think they'll do it.

i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: this debate is about health care versus don't care. the democrats' health care law lowers prescription drug costs, helps middle-class families pay for coverage for their sick children and expands health care for 32 million more americans, reducing the deficit by $143 billion. the democrats' health care law helps grandma afford her prescription drugs. the republicans don't care about grandma. they want to take back the drug benefits in the new law. g.o.p. used to stand for grand old party. now it stands for grandma's out

of prescriptions. the republicans don't care repeal shows they don't care about sick children with medical bills, pushing families into bankruptcy. they don't care about grandma and grandpa who need help paying for prescription drugs. vote down this rule so that we can help grandma, sick children and middle-class families struggling to pay for health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this point i'm happy to yield one minute to a hardworking member of this freshman class, the gentleman from san antonio, mr. canseco. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. canseco: madam speaker, i rise today in support of the rule and in support of an underlying legislation, the repealing of the job-killing health care act. 10 months ago president obama and his allies in the

democrat-controlled house and senate committed legislative malpractice when they jammed through the congress and into the law a washington takeover of health care. they did so despite the overwhelming opposition of the american people. since its enactment into law, what was already an unpopular law has only continued to become more unpopular. there's no doubt that we need to reform health care in america. however, it's not done by assaulting individual liberties guaranteed in our constitution, bankrupting our children and grandchildren and putting washington bureaucrats and personal relationships between our doctors and our patients. repealing the health care bill will also help encourage job growth to get our economy back on track. our economy's not suffering from a capital crisis. it is suffering from a confidence crisis. mr. chairman, may i -- mr. dreier: madam speaker, i'm happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. canseco: thank you. policies enacted in washington like the health care bill have injected uncertainty into our economy that has eroded the confidence of americans to start new businesses or expand current ones to create jobs. the american people have made it clear, they want the health care law repealed and replaced with commonsense alternatives that will lower the cost of health care while also increasing quality and access. after meeting and speaking with thousands of texans in the 23rd district over the past year, this is their message. repealing and replacing the health care bill is one of the promises made to america in the pledge to america. today we are working on that promise as we work to -- the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. canseco: thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the gentleman from nouge, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. this is nothing but a gag rule. i and so many of my colleagues on the krattic side went up to the rules committee yesterday and asked for amendments and they were almost all excluded from this rule. the republican chairman of the committee says there's transparency. he says that there's an opportunity for participation. he can say it as many times as he wants but it's simply not true. he also said this is a commitment to the american people. there's no commitment to the american people here. the only commitment is to the insurance companies. they're the only ones that are going to gain from repeal of this important legislation because they want to increase premiums and they want to institute discriminatory practices again against women, against men. against those who have breast cancer, or bring back those annual caps or lifetime caps if they have a serious operation and they try to go back again

and they don't have insurance. or perhaps the child who's up to 26 and also will not be able to get on their parent's insurance policy again. so let me tell you here. the only one that benefits is the insurance company, not the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of my friend on the other side of the aisle how many speakers she has remaining? ms. slaughter: certainly, madam speaker. we have -- we've got every minute taken. i'm not sure everybody is going to show up. mr. dreier: i'm told 11 minutes are remaining on your side. i think with that i reserve the balance of our time. ms. slaughter: all right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, the dean of the house and our leader on health care, mr. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the great state of michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: madam speaker, if you listen to the republicans today, they're telling us, don't bother them with the facts, their minds are made up. they are unaware of the fact that the congressional budget office says that this is going to create four million jobs in the health care legislation. they don't tell us that the same congressional budget office says that passage of h.r. 2 is going to increase the deficit by $140 billion. and they also are telling us, the american people want this repeal. they don't. they understand what this means. it means that no longer are people going to get the protections that the health insurance bill gives. no more protections that the republicans get their way against pre-existing conditions and recisions, denying people health care because of something that happened to them down the road before. no longer will americans be

protected against frivolous and improper behavior by the insurance companies. this is a bad role. it is not on facts but on fiction. if this body is going to legislate and legislate well we need the facts, not fiction, no deceit, not misleading statements by our republican colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california continues to reserve the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: if you are hit by a truck this afternoon or your child contracts a dreaded disease your future ought not to depend on the fine print in an insurance policy you didn't have anything to do with

writing. no insurance monopoly should stand between you and your doctor. unfortunately, the republican party has become little more than an arm of the insurance monopolies. they asked for a vote to further empower those monopolies and we ask for a vote for american families to empower them. a vote to repeal is a vote to maintain health care costs as the leading cause of bankruptcy and credit card debt in this country. it is a vote to require seniors to pay more, more for prescription drugs, more for diabetes and cancer screenings. we can stand with american families today or we can bend and kneel to the insurance monopolies. the choice is clear. let's vote for american families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california

reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman and former member of the rules, mr. welch from vermont. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentlelady from new york. i say, madam speaker, to my republican colleagues, you can't -- you beat us good, you ran on the agenda of defeating health care and repealing it. now you're doing it. own it. admit what it is you are doing. this is not a campaign. we're playing with fire. we're taking away health care benefits to make a real difference to our families. number one, this bill will raise the deficit by $230 billion. fiscal responsibility out the window. second, things that matter to families, their kids starting out getting $10 an hour job without health care. they have it now on their parent's policies. we are taking it away. pre-existing conditions. you have cancer, want to buy insurance, you can't. repeal, you can't. you lose it. lifetime caps. if you are with cancer or diabetes and you need that

insurance, you lose it before you can go without it. and preventive care, we're taking it away from seniors who are trying to take care of themselves, get those free mammograms, keep the cost of health care down. you are taking it away. admit it. own it. state it proudly. it's what you campaigned on. it's what you're doing. but don't try to sugarcoat what this is about. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york -- the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: madam speaker, the issue facing the country is jobs. instead of repealing health care we should bring up a jobs bill like the china currency reform. and so i rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. today, i speak on behalf of millions of americans who are currently benefiting from the law and have yet been shut out

of the legislative process. the way in which this legislation has been brought to this floor is a travesty. before the affordable care act became law in the house alone, we held nearly 80 hearings on the merits of reform. but this bill to repeal this life-saving law has not had a single hearing, not one amendment has been allowed for an up or down vote here today. that's probably because the majority knows hearings would show that the law is already a real success. while we may disagree on the policy, we should be able to agree on the process. and this, my friends, is not the way to move legislation in the house of representatives. we've all agreed upon that, and that's why i urge my colleagues, especially the new members who ran on the promise of ensuring an open congress, vote against this rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. garegare a lot of talk here on the -- mr. garamendi: a lot of talk here on the floor about job killers. the affordable health care bill creates some 400,000 jobs. the repeal of it is actually a killer of human beings. some 40,000 americans die every year for lack of health insurance. that's the reality. repeal this bill and you're going to find more americans dying. also, you're doing away with this repeal of the affordable health care act, of the patients bill of rights. i was insurance commissioner in california. i know exactly what the insurance companies will do if this repeal goes forward. they will continue to rescind policies. they will continue to deny coverage. they will continue to make sure that those 23-year-old children that have graduated from college will no longer be able

to be on their parent's policies. this repeal is perhaps the worst thing you can do to americans in their health care. and besides that, you will significantly increase the deficit by $230 billion. . i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the figures from today's jobs report showing that since the enactment of health reform in march, 2010, the which has created 11.1 million private sector jobs. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule that we are taking up today instead of focusing on jobs. the new majority in the house ran on the platform of fiscal responsibility. this bill flies in the face of that promise by adding $230

billion in the short run and over $1 trillion in the long run to our deficit. as important, under repeal the medicare trust fund will become insolvent by 2017. that's just six years away. pushing medicare over the cliff by passing this repeal breaks the sacred trust with our nation's seniors to help provide health care coverage in retirement after a lifetime of working and paying taxes. that's why i went to rules committee last night with two colleagues and offered and amendment to guarantee that repeal will not go forward unless it's certified that that repeal will not shorten the life of the medicare trust fund. sadly, the rules committee didn't allow us to help protech america's seniors, they didn't allow that amendment. we will not be able to vote for that amendment on the floor. and i urge a no vote on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire, first how much time is remaining on each side, and of my colleague how many more speakers she has. the speaker pro tempore: 7 1/2 for california. 5 1/2 for the gentlelady from new york. mr. dreier: madam speaker, then in light of that i'm very happy to yield one minute to a physician, another hardworking member of this freshman class, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hayworth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. hayworth: madam speaker, as a physician i understand the profound importance of the goals of the health care bill passed last year. to assure that all americans have affordable, portable health insurance, providing access to good medical care. i also understand that -- the disruptions this law is already causing to our economy, the predictable side effects of

legislative bad medicine, and the reason we must repeal and replace it. the bill we will be considering is in no way nearly imbolic. it represents the true will of the american people. the majority of whom have stated time after time to this day that they reject this law. the house's vote to repeal is the first step towards assuring that all americans will have the quality, choice, and innovation in health care. that they expect and deserve. we need to proceed expeditiously . according to the rule on which we vote today, with the understanding that we are taking meaningful and crucial action. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from organizeon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: previous speaker's

right. this is not symbolic, it's real. in fact, the republicans are going to allow the return of the worst abuses of the health insurance industry. pre-existing condition exclusions. taking away your policy when you get sick. lifetime and annual caps. throwing your kids off your policies. the republican repeal of this bill would enable all those things for their very, very generous benefactors in the insurance industry. i haven't had a single constituent and i know you haven't, begged you to bring back these abuses. is that what you are doing? is that what they want? you could take steps right now, in fact, to rein in this industry, and 400 people in this house voted for it last year. let's take away their unfair exemption from antitrust law so they can't collude to drive up prices, they can't collude to take away your insurance, they can't collude to that throw your

kids off and all the other anti-competitive things an industry does. i offered that amendment to rules last night. the republicans, despite the chairman of the committee and others having voted for it last year, would not allow it. this is an insurance industry bill plain and simple. 7 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to another hardworking physician, a member of this new freshman class, the gentleman from south pittsburgh, tennessee, dr. desjarlais. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. desjarlais: madam speaker, today i rise to support the rule and to support the repeal of the obama health care law. as a physician who has practiced medicine in rural tennessee under the onerous tenn care law, i know parent that this law does not work. it restricts access to health care. it increases the cost, and it does not deliver on the promises the minority made when they

passed the law. the american people have had their say. they do not want this bill. they want it repealed and they want to see health care reform that will increase access and lower costs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from the rules committee for allowing me to speak. i ask unanimous consent to place my full statement in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: i rise in strong opposition to this rule on h.r. 2, patient's rights repeal. just yesterday the congressional budget office said that this repeal would cost $230 billion in additional federal debt. it's amazing this is our first major piece of legislation and the republicans are already adding to the national debt. the issue facing our country is

jobs. instead of repealing health care, we should be bringing up a jobs bill like the china currency reform. where is that bill on the floor with the new majority? let me tell you what this bill will do. at least in texas we will see tragedy happen. 161,000 young adults will lose their insurance coverage through their parents' health care plan. that's only in texas. 2.8 million texans who have medicare coverage will be forced to pay co-pays now for preventive surgeries, like mammogram services. medicare will no longer pay for the annual visit of nearly 2.8 million texans and many more americans for medicare. 128,682 texans on medicare will receive higher prescription costs if this bill is repealed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, could i inquire again of my friend how many more speakers she has remaining at this point?

ms. slaughter: i have four. mr. dreier: i think with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this rule. despite ardent promises from republicans that all bills would be considered under regular order, this resolution has neither been debated nor voted on by a single committee of jurisdiction. additionally, the recently passed republican rules package requires that all legislation be fully paid for and yet the republican leadership has already publicly declared that they have no intention of paying for what is estimated to be a $230 billion increase in the deficit that the repeal of health reform would create by 2021. according to the congressional budget office. worse than the republicans'

already broken promises are what this rule and the underlying resolution would do to children, seniors, and all americans suffering from illnesses. i strongly oppose this rule and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to another great new member. the gentlelady from 340 -- missouri, miss archer. --miss archer. miss archer: i can testify as a person newly elected and been on the campaign trail for a while in the fourth district we have small businesses that are not hiring and not expanding because of the health care bill. we have got to repeal this so that we can create more jobs. i'm a small business owner myself and i can tell you since this has passed that health insurance premiums have voted --

skyrocketed. the anticipation of the mandate will be forced on them. if we want to get serious about creating jobs, we need to start by repealing this. this is also a bill to rein in the run away spending. that is devastating our country and it's mortgaging our children's future. as a another that's important to me. this bill put another $1.2 trillion of debt on our country. we cannot afford that. and lastly, this is a freedom bill. the people in my district do not want the government telling them they have to buy a private product and then mandating what is in that product. that is unconstitutional. by passing this last year, you have taken away my freedom, the freedom of the people of the fourth district, and the people of this country. we deserve better. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has left. mr. dreier: madam speaker, let

me just say to my friend from rochester that i will be the final speaker. ms. slaughter: you're ready to close. mr. dreier: i'm ready to close. ms. slaughter: thank you. mr. dreier: how many more speakers does the gentlewoman have? ms. slaughter: two left. i would like to yield one of those minutes to ms. sutton from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. sutton: thank you, madam speaker the issue facing this country is jobs. instead of rushing to the aid of the insurance industry to reinstate their right to engage in egregious discriminatory practices of discriminating against adults and children based on pre-existing conditions, instead of allowing the doughnut hole to continue to bear down on our seniors, we should be passing real jobs legislation. urgently we should be bringing up jobs bills that will make a real difference like putting an

end to china's currency manipulation. we have heard the numbers, 2.4 million jobs lost across the country. 92,000 jobs lost in ohio. and 5,700 jobs have been lost in my congressional district due to china's deliberate and abusive trade policies. we can do something about this issue today and we should. it makes a real difference. i hope that our friends across the aisle will stand with american businesses and american workers and put an end to the abusive practice of china's currency manipulation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'll continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield for a unanimous consent request, the gentleman, mr. butterfield, from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady. i ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr.

andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. there are 15 million americans unemployed this morning. they do not want us to play politics with health care, they want to us work together to create jobs. there is a job killer loose in america. the job killer is unfair trade practices that force the outsourcing of our jobs. there is a proposal that has broad agreement between republicans and democrats to bring fair trade back to america. if we defeat the previous question, we will move to amend the rule to make in order the currency reform for fair trade act which simply says this. as the chinese have been slamming the door shut on our workers and products, we have been opening our shelves in american department stores. no more of that. no more outsourcing of jobs.

no more unfair trade practices. a fair and level playing field for american workers. let's work together to create jobs and stop the politics and the waste of time of health care. vote no on the previous question. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'll continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i would like to pause for unanimous consent request for mr. engel, the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i rise in opposition to this amendment. it seems that the openness of the new majority promised us lasted half a day. and changed the order remain the same. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, if we are able to beat the previous

question, i will move to amend the rule to make in order a bill, h.r. 2378, from the last congress, the currency reform for fair trade act, which invokes our anti-dumping laws and provides relief for american workers and companies injured by unfair exchange rate policies. . i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of the currency reform for the fair trade act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and i yield to the gentleman from new york for a parliamentary inquiry. >> madam speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. weiner: what is the current whole number of the members of the house? the speaker pro tempore: the whole number of the house is 435. mr. weiner: madam speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state. mr. weiner: can the speaker state that all have been sworn

as under the constitution? the speaker pro tempore: the speaker, it's her belief that all have been sworn. mr. weiner: thank you. ms. slaughter: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you, madam speaker. this is the first act of the 112th congress and i am particularly gratified that we had six new members of this 87-member republican class participate in this debate. because, madam speaker, they have come here with a very, very strong, powerful message from the american people. that message is that we have to make sure that we create jobs and get our economy back on track. even though we've goten this positive news of the reduction of the unemployment rate from 9.8% to 9.3% this morning,

tragically last month only 105,000 new jobs were created. that's not enough to sustain our economy. you have to create at least 150,000 just to be treading water. and so we know that the american people are continuing to suffer. and the message that has come from the american people through these 87 new members is that we have to have a laser-like focus on creating jobs, getting our economy back on track and reduce the size and scope and reach of the federal government. my friend, mr. pence and i, had an exchange which we said only in washington, d.c., can a $2.7 trillion increase, saying that cutting that, eliminating that, scrapping that will in fact cost money. it's absolutely crazy, but that's what they're arguing, and through their sleight of

hand with the congressional budget office they are continuing to claim that somehow it will save money. madam speaker, we are doing what we told the american people we would do. it's very simple. beginning last year we said we would have a very clean, up or down vote, an up or down vote should we maintain this $2.7 trillion expansion with government mandates and increased taxes or should we repeal it, and that's what we're going to be voting on after the three-deleover next week. and, madam speaker, are we in fact committing ourselves to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that every single american has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance? and that's what the resolution i introduced, h.res. 9, will do. it will direct the six committees of jurisdiction to

begin immediately working on ways in which we can drive the cost of health insurance down. i personally believe that we need to allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines which is now forbidden under the karen ferguson act. i believe we -- the karon-ferguson act. i believe we need to have lower rates. we need to have pooling for pre-existing conditions. we need to expand medical savings accounts and, yes, madam speaker, the fifth thing we need to do is to have meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go towards doctors and not trial lawyers. and, madam speaker, these are the kinds of things that these new members are telling us need to be done and that's exactly what passage of this rule will make happen. madam speaker, let me say i urge support of this rule and i urge support of the underlying legislation, and once again,

with zeal, enthusiasm and gratitude, i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rwill rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. and members will record their votes by 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 questi of adoption. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, in, 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 236. the nays are 182. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of theesolution. all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed say no. the ayes have it. >> request a recorded vote, madam speaker. 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. this is 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 236, theays are 181. two are present. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. all members and staff will take their conversaons from the floor. members please take seats. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> madam speaker, i am on the floor of the house of representatives where members of congress get sworn in and i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> under the rules of the state can a committee of the house be presided over by someone who is not a member of the house of representatives and who is not a member of that committee? the speaker pro tempore: no, only members may serve on

standing committees -- only sworn members may serve on standing committees. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: pursuant to house resolution 26, i send to the desk as a designee of the majority leader a resolution and ask for its immediate considering. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report its -- will report the resolution. >> point of order, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved, the clerk will report. the clerk: whereas representative elect segs and representative elect fitzpatrick were not sworn in until after the completion of legislative business on january 6, 2011 and whereas the votes cast by representative-elect sessions and represent-elect fitzpatrick on roll calls 3 through 8 were nullities, now

therefore be it resolved that votes for representative-elect sessions and representative-elect fipatrick be deleted an the roll call totals be adjusted accordingly, in the journal and the congressionarecord. 2, the election o representative-elect sessions to a standing committee and its proceed beings ratified. 3, the measured delivered to the sect -- committee be ratified, five, any co-sponsor list naming representative-elect sessions or representative-elect fitzpatrick be considered as valid, and six, any nonvoting representation by representative-elect sessions and representative-elect fitzpatrick on the floor be ratified.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i rise to a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his point of order. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. mr. weiner: i make a point of order that the consideration of this resolution is in violation of the house rules that we just passed. in which a new section was created to rule 21 that required at least threeays' notice to consider legislation that it be posted on the internet, we have a chance to review it. it is particularly important in this case since 're dealing with a constitutional issue, one that is without precedent. i insist on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair must observe that the rule citedto bills and joint resolutions.

mr. weiner: point of parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule all point of orders are waived. mr. weiner: point of parliamentary inqry. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state. mr. weine am i to understand that under the rules just passed, they're already being exempting this resolution which is of a question of the interpretation of the constitution of the united states that it's already being waived that that new rule requiring three days is already being waived? the speaker pro tempore: the rule that the gentleman cites only applies to bills and joint resolutions. mr. weiner: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to ction 3 of house resolution 26, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, and the gentleman from new york, mr. wiener, each will control two minute the chair recognized the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: the house is not in

order, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. the royce needs to be in order. members anstaff will take their conversations from the floor. mr. dreier: i'm going to be the only speaker on our side, so i will reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: i thought that the chairman was going to say he was going to be brief. enough choice with this rule, it's a pretty short one. i just want to say in the brief two minutes that we have here that this is a pretty important issue that we're faced with and i should say just at the outset that i have the greatest respect for my friend, mr. sessions. i consider him to be a friend ani hope to get to know mr. fitzpatrick as well and call him a iend as well. but what we're dealing with today is perhaps the most basic test that we have on whether we're going to take legislation seriously. to the great credit of the maker of this resolution which we just got, it stipulates right in the first couple of sessions, we vimetted the

constitution on our very first -- we violated the constitution on our very first day. the constitutional requirement for oath was violated. i give you credit for recognizing that. you say it created nullities which is a way of saying, we operated outside this document on the same day we were reading it. when mr. sessions and mr. fitzpatrick stood up in front of a television set and held their right hand up, not unlike about 2,000 of my constituents, i suspect, they were violating a very important part of these proceedings, yet we have a grandotal of two minutes on each side, mr. dreier, and to my colleague in which to debate how to fix this -- how to fix that infirmity. mr. sessions presided over the rule committees during a large portion in which he was not even a duly sworn member of the united states congre. yet we're doing nothing to go back and see whether that influenced oceedings at all. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this

resolution, not because mr. fitzpatrick and mr. sessions are not members of congress, they clearly are and i congratulate them, but because for the first time in american hist, refirst time in th history of this body, we are going to pass a fix of a constitutional infirmity with, wait for it, four minutes of debate, when we didn't have the bill until just now and i strongly urge my colleagues to think about the preceent this sets. i ask the consent of the chairman for an additional just one minute so we can have an understanding. mr. dreier: i have no authority to do that. mr. weiner: if the gentleman will yield. mr. dreier: we're living under this rule. mr. weiner: the gentleman may yield to a unanimous consent qusm only you, mr. dreier have the ability to yield to a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman eld for that.

mr. dreier: i have my time and i will be utilizing that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york's time has expired, the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i appreciate the fact that my friend from new york has stated his respect for mr. sessions and mr. fitzpatrick. these two individuals were in this capitol, they were in this capitol when they took the oath of office. they didn't happen to be in this exact room. under the standard of collegiality, in jefferson's manual, it is indicated that they have to be within the proximity of the speaker. madam speaker, any member, any member who does not vote in favor of this resolution, any member who does not vote in favor of this resolution is allowing the problem to persist. this resolution will address the problem which ewith all

realize has happened and i believe that we have a responsibility to the institution, we have a responsibility to the constitution, we have a responsibility to the american people and this resolution rectifies a problem that has existed. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. mr. weiner: parliamentary incarery, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman will state. mr. weiner: under the rules of the house, are the members of congress not duhly sworn entitled to be paid for -- not duly sworn entitled to be paid for the days they were t sworn in. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. pursuant to section 3 of house 26, the previous question is ordered on the resolution. the question son adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. weiner: i ask for a recorded vote, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members willecord their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-mine vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of presentatives. 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 257, the nays are 159, three voting present. the resolution is adopted and without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, under

clause 2g of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i herewith designate robert revis, deputy clerk to sign any and all papers and do all other acts for me under the name of the clerk of the house, which they will be authorized to do by virtue of this designation, except such as provided by statute in case of my temporary absence or disability. this shall continue through the 112th congress or until modified by me. signed, sincerely, karen haas, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rides? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent for purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield to the majority leader and

congratulate him on his election as leader of the majority party. we have had an opportunity to work together over the years and it's been a positive relationship and i look forward to continuing that positive relationship, albeit in my diminished status. mr. can spore south carolina i thank my friend. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. members please take their seats. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from maryland for those kind remarks. i want to also reiterate my pleasure at being able to develop a positive relationship, working relationship with him, understanding full well there will be disagreements but there is probably a lot more we can agree on and i look forward to exploring those avenues. mr. hoyer: the house continues to be out of order and i can't

hear the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members and staff will take their conversations off the floor. members will take their seats. the house will come to order. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i prishte the gentleman's remarks, i want to congratulate him on his election to a position of democratic whip and look forward to working this relationship and i know that these roles have been reversed now in these colloquies, i look forward to that as well. madam speaker, on monday, the house is not in session. on tuesday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. on thursday and friday, the house will not be in session to accommodate the republican

retreat. on tuesday, we will consider at least one bill under suspension of the rules, which will be announced later today. we will also p begin consideration of h.r. 2, the repealing the job-killing health care law act. i expect the house to complete debate on h.r. 2 wednesday afternoon. also on wednesday, madam speaker, the house will consider h.res. 9, instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for outlining the schedule. there was an interesting article in "the washington post" today about your job-killing comments always being attached to the health care bill, there are obviously some of us who know full well that was not a part of the title. i'm sure the gentleman would admit that and in fact it does not do that at all.

in fact, we think it creates jobs but in any event, i thank the gentleman for announcing the schedule. i want to say we're disappointed however, as he was in -- when he was in my position, that we are -- that we don't have a committee process for this very important piece of legislation. i think it's important from your perspective and it's important from our perspective, though we may have different perspectives on whether it should pass or fail. but it is an important piece of legislation. there was no committee process. no hearings. no opportunity for the public to be heard on the bill. no opportunity for the members to testify. with respect to that bill. no witnesses were heard. and furthermore, under the rule, of course, we have been given no opportunity to amend. the gentleman, when he was in my position, would repeatedly

indicate how disappointed he was that there were no amendments allowed on certain bills. i want to reiterate that concern and given the lack of amendments, i want to clarify what he believes will be the finishing of votes on wednesday. i understand debate will begin on tuesday. is that -- and conclude on wednesday? mr. cantor: i ask the gentleman to repeat the question. mr. hoyer: what time do you expect to conclude business on wednesday? mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, madam speaker, that it is our intention to conclude by 7:00 p.m. on wednesday. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response. in light of the fact that you

have made -- your side has made a pledge to allow ample time for members to read and consider, and notwithstanding that they've already not pursued that as vigorously as i think you would have hoped and perhaps we would have hoped as well, in the 112th congress, i was wondering if the gentleman can enlighten us on what he expects to consider the rest of january after next week so members might have opportunities to anticipate issues that you're going to be bringing forward. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. as to the inquiry about openness and the ability for members to have time to read the bills, as well as for the public to realize its right to know, we on our side believe in making sure there is that adequate time and we posted on monday legislation coming to the floor for this week and next. so i would say to the gentleman

from maryland, madam speaker, that it is our intention to continue to uphold our commitment to the three-day rule, allow for the public's right to know as well as members themselves to understand what it is we're voting for. as to the gentleman's comments regarding the up or down vote on obamacare repeal, if the gentleman has looked at the postings online, he'll know that the repeal resolution is a page and a half. this is a repeal of a bill that was the subject of significant legislative time and other over the course of the last two years. it is clear that the public has litigated and in essence has decided its position on that bill given the results of november's election. and it's -- it comes down to whether you're for obamacare or

against it. that's what the vote is. again a page and a half. that's what the bill is. so we have committed to continuing in the vein of an open process when it comes to trying to get it right as far as replacing the health care status quo. and we have committed and the speaker has committed to making sure that our committees will go through regular order, members of the minority and majority will have ample time to engage in par -- engage and participate in the discussions around what type of health care americans deserve and what type of health care they want. which is how we will proceed when it comes to the so-called replacement resolution and its implementation. i would also point out to the gentleman from maryland that the rules committee has accepted the amendment proposed

by the gentleman from utah as far as a suggestion that he had regarding the s.g.r. formula and the reimbursements for physicians under the medicare program. again, we are trying to work in a fashion that open, that is as inclusive as we can, as the speaker said in his remarks, the speaker says we had, and was correct when he said we had no open rules under the last congress. we intend for that not to be the case here. i know that the gentleman joins me in the desire for us to be able to work together and we believe that that will provide the best way forward for that. as to the gentleman's question about the remainder of january, madam speaker, we intend to focus on the theme of this congress, which is cut and grow. we're going to be talking about

ways to cut spending, we are going to live up to our commitment to bring a spending cut bill to the floor each and every week, madam speaker, we also intend to focus on what it is that is impeding job growth in the economy and will be asking our committees to begin focusing on regulations that are being promulgated and pursued throughout the administration and its agencies that are precluding job growth. it is our hope, though, madam speaker, that these committees, our committees, will be fully organized by the end of the month so we can begin a process of regular order and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. obviously the health care bill he seeks, he and his party seek to repeal had probably more consideration, more open debate, more transparency, more amendments, more hearings, than

almost any bill that i have considered as a member of this congress over the last three decades. full and open consideration. amendments offered from both sides in committee on a very ample basis. but i am glad to hear that you agree that there have been ample debate time for that. there has not been any debate time in committees or amendments on the repeal of that law. i certainly am hopeful the gentleman does not mean to say that if the majority party concludes that the american public have already decided an issue, that there won't be, therefore, that will be the exception to the rule that you have put forth in terms of full and ample notice, debate, amendment process and

transparency. i would certainly hope that that would not be the case. i don't expect it to be the case and i hope it won't be let me say in addition, that i'm very pleased that the majority party allowed in order the amendment by mr. matheson. as you know, we tried to have a permanent fix to the reimbursement of doctors who took medicare patients, unfortunately, the minority party in the senate which had the opportunity to do that precluded us from accomplishing that objective. so i'm pleased that that needs to be done. we need to have a stable funding expectation by doctors when they provide services to medicare patients, to senior, as we want them to do and we want them to continue to do. i'm pleased you athrude amendment. i would hope that members on

your side would be supporting that amendment as we will on this side. let me ask you now, mr. majority leader, i am very concerned, i expressed this on the floor, your rules in my view, provide for some $5 trillion to be incurred in additional deficits. . they allow that because you have exempted almost all of the possible reductions in revenues, tax cuts, reductions in revenues, notwithstanding no reduction in spending. well, if you reduce revenues and you don't reduce spending, commensurately, inevitably, you will create a large deficit which inevitably will be paid by future generations. that's been the experience that, again, i have had when we had significant tax cuts in the

1980's. and last decade, the decade of 2000, 2001, 2003 where we created very large deficits. my presumption is you will be finding a commensurate reduction s in spending to your tax cuts that you want to continue. if you don't do that, deficits will inevitably follow. the majority party has not done that in years past. is it your expectation that that will occur in the future? but the question i want to ask you as well is that you have provided in your rules essentially ignoring c.b.o. scores. the nonpartisan congressional budget office which serves us has issued a preliminary score for the republican patients' bill of rights, they believe it

will increase the deficit by $230 billion in the first 10 years by repeal and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. my question is having deemed in the rule today a provision allowing the chair of the budget committee, mr. ryan, to ignore the c.b.o. score, will the majority continue to ignore c.b.o. scores on legislation for the rest of congress or will we be fiscally responsible n. my view, and adhere to -- responsible, in my view, and adhere to the advice and counsel we receive from c.b.o. i yield. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i respond to his first question by saying that washington doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem. and we believe that it is better to allow folks to keep pore of -- more of their hard-earned money so we can see a return to growth in our economy and that we are dedicated to making sure we deal with the spending

problem here in washington. as i said before to the gentleman, we are intending and will bring to the floor each and every week a bill that cuts spending. we are very focused as you know in bringing spending down to 2008 levels to make sure that we are abiding by our commitment to live according to the same rules that everyone else does while businesses and families are living within their means, tightening their belts, there is no reason in the world why washington can't as well. i'm sure the gentleman agrees with me on that. as for the issues surrounding the c.b.o., the issue that we have and dispute we have is not with the congressional budget office. c.b.o. scores what's put in front of them. the reality is the obamacare bill relied on smoke and mirrors and budgetary shell games in order to present the picture

that it presents or allegation to represent. -- alleges to represent. madam speaker, there is nothing that has changed about the flawed assumptions underlying the old score of the obamacare bill, only the dates have changed. this is the same gimmicks, producing more false deficit reduction, and in fact real spending increases. in fact, as the gentleman knows, madam speaker, the medicare's chief actuary says that the obamacare bill represents a maze of mandates, tax hikes, and subsidies that will push costs up. the bottom line, madam speaker, is we need to stop arguing about inside baseball budget gimmicks. there is no question that a new open-ended entitlement program will grow unsustainably fast, will drive costs up, and could potentially bankrupt this federal government as well as our states. so with that, madam speaker, i

yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i want to say to my friend, the continuing rhetoric is washington doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem. americans in every family that i know understand that their revenues directly impact on their spending and vice versa. and if they don't, they have a real problem. they don't have enough revenue to meet their expenditures, they have a problem. and if their spending exceeds their revenue they have a problem. i tell my friend, i understand what you're saying and i have heard this rhetoric all of my career here in the congress. i tell my friend that when president reagan was president we never overrode a presidential

veto of an appropriation bill because it spent too much. he veeyoted it spent too much, never had a veto overwritten. nevertheless we incurred an additional $1.5 trillion in deficits. under president bush, george h.w. bush, we didn't override any veto of his and we incurred an additional trillion dollars. that was $2.5 trillion plus. under the clinton administration , of course, economic program as you and i both know that your party universally opposed, we had a surplus. the only president in your lifetime and i think in mine, which is substantially longer, that's had four years of surplus. now, i know you say, response that mr. dreier gave to me is that well, yes, we took over the congress in 1995. that's correct. and of course not only did you

take over the congress in 1995 but in 2000 you took over the presidency as well and controlled the house and the senate and the presidency. and during that period of time we didn't pass any appropriation bills on our side. you were in full charge during the bush administration, first six years, and $3.5 trillion of deficit spending was incurred making a total of over $5 trillion of deficit spending during the time that your party took the position that we didn't have a revenue problem we had a spending problem. well, it ended up being a $5 trillion deficit problem adding to the deficit for our children. and for my grandchildren and for my great granddaughter. i'm concerned about that. and that is why i'm so concerned

about statutory pay-go. sticking with c.b.o. scores, and accommodating our spending and revenue. they are both related, obviously, and to ignore that -- eliminating revenue without eliminating spending doesn't cause deficits i think is to ignore reality. i'm sorry, i hope my friend would talk to mr. ryan, the budget committee, and bring us legislation which would, in fact, do what you and i want to do. that is eliminate the deficit. if we got two messages during this past election, in my view, it was, a, focus on creating jobs. we got to get to work. americans are hurting. we had some good job numbers this month. we have created over $1.3 million jobs this past year as opposed to losing almost four

million jobs in the last year of the bush administration. that's progress. but as i have said so often, it's not success. success will be when every american who wants a job learn to work, can -- willing to work, can fine a job that can support him or her and their families. but we need to not pretend that revenues and spending are not inextricably related. if we give up revenues before we do the difficult thing, the tough thing, the adult thing, as mr. boehner said, and cut the spending, then cut the revenues if americans are buying it, then we ought to be paying for it and not passing along the bill to our grandchildren. i would hope the gentleman would pursue that. if the gentleman wants to respond to that, i'll say something about health care, briefly. mr. cantor: madam speaker, the gentleman and i have gone

through these discussions the last few years and when we get into discussing the past, i normally posit a quote from winston churchill when he said if we open a karl between the past and present we shall find we have lost the future. and what my response is, madam speaker, we are looking to see that we do take the tough steps and cut spending. i'm hopeful with all the renewed enthusiasm that all of us have gained after the election towards fiscal sanity that the gentleman and his caucus can join us and vote with us in terms of the spending cuts that we'll be bringing to the floor every week. the gentleman speaks about revenues. and absolutely as an ongoing concern this government has to be concerned with that. but we first and foremost must understand that i think both of us realize, madam speaker, that in order to have revenues, we've got to have a growing economy.

so there is a balance. and that is where i perhaps our two visions diverge. it is my hope that we can work together by putting priorities in place, cutting spending, growing the economy. that's the formula by which we will be operating. i'm hopeful we can operate on those formulas and that formula together. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the gentleman's comment and simply in closing, madam speaker, let me say this. i hope we can cooperate, but we do have a divergence as my friend pointed out. that's the nature of what the house of representatives does, debates differentiate points of view. frankly, my experience as i have said is that when we diverged in a point of view in 1993, when my republican friends took the position that accommodating

revenues to spending would, in fact, from their perspective, be a job killer, they talk a lot about job killing legislation. they all voted against that legislation in 1993. and in fact some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle lost their election because of voting for that piece of legislation. in fact, however, it helped create the most robust economy anybody in this chamber has experienced in their lifetime. it created over 22 million jobs as opposed to losing eight million jobs in the last administration under president bush so that there was a substantial difference which you can see, touch, and feel. and read about and know about. so i tell my friend, yes, there's a difference of opinion, but there is no difference of opinion on what happened. and when winston churchill, you

quoted before, and of whom i'm a great fan, one of the things that winston churchill was most known for was trying to remind his british friends, don't forget what dictators and despots do. remember, and i make no aspersions, i want to make that clear, i'm simply saying he believed strongly in learning from the past. and not continuing to make mistakes and not continue to do what failed in years before. so i agree with the gentleman. looking at the past is for instruction on how to make the future better and to create those jobs that both he and i want to create. and america is certainly looking forward to us to create. i thank the gentleman for this colloquy and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 12:00 noon on tuesday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. jones of north carolina for today and mr. smith of nebraska for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, those requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition?

the gentleman is recognized. for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today for the first time to address the house and express my strong support for passage of a free trade agreement with colombia. colombia is america's fourth largest trading partner in latin america and the u.s. department of commerce estimates that 9,000 american companies trade with colombia. most of which are small businesses and many of which operate in my district in south florida. while 90% of colombian goods enter the u.s. duty free, american companies still pay pair riffs for u.s. goods to enter colombia. the colombia free trade agreement would eliminate obstacles and immediately boost u.s. exports to colombia. by passing a free trade agreement with colombia, u.s. g.d.p. would increase by roughly $2.5 bill an export by over $1 billion creating thousands of jobs in the united states. mr. rivera: the colombia free trade agreement is a positive foreign policy gesture to one of our most reliable allies in the

reasonable yodge and oldest continuing functioning democracy in all of south america. it's time to stand with one of our best allies in latin america and create thousands of jobs here at home with passage of a colombia free trade agreement. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose duds the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm wondering whether many people understand what we did today. frankly, we gave permission for more americans to die from lack of good health care. in fact, as i presented my amendments to the rules committee last evening, i was reminded, you will, of those who really suffer because of lack of access to good health care. i offered an amendment to ensure that h.r. 2 to repeal this good health care bill would not eliminate what we call community health clinics and deny rural and urban areas

the good doctors and nurses who treat the children and seniors. then i asked that we protect middle class and not have the insurance rate goes up and finally to make sure we don't have the medicare and medicaid fraud and abuse and to protect those who need medicaid as my state of texas is going to eliminate it. so people will die as we proceed in this untimely and ludicrous process. but i'm glad that someone from my district will ascend to presidency of the naacp in our local community. i believe with these good-thinking people we'll be able to rise up and save the lives and oppose any repeal of this good, affordable care bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other members who wish to be recognized for one minute? if not -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition?

ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special -- special orders entered into heretofore, the following members may be allowed to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend mare remarks, mr. blumenauer of oregon for five minutes, mr. mcdermott of with washington for five minutes, mr. al green of texas for five minutes mrks kaptur of ohio for five minutes, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ord. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following member mace be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. franks for today, mr. pence for today, mr. bartlett for january 11 and january 12 and dr. paul for january 11 and

january 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ord. -- so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of -- policy of january 5, 2011, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. blumenauer of oregon. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mckermot: mr. speaker, those who are watching this today may wonder what just happened in the house of representatives. i want to talk a little bit about it so they understand what goes on next week on the floor of this house.

today, we set the stage for the passage of the republican health care plan. it won't be a repeal of what the democratic congress did before. it will be returning us to the status quo when we are totally in control, the health care insurance in this country is totally in control of the private insurance industry. now, yesterday, i was on a conference call with groups that represent 18,000 physicians who want us not to act and repeal the affordable health care act next week. they've taken resolutions in every district around this country among physicians, they delivered them to the speaker's office, mr. boehner, in cincinnati, they've taken them to mr. cantor's office in

virginia, because doctors know what this act really does. i listen to a couple of my colleagues who are physicians and i heard them say they wanted to repeal it all. but the 18,000 physicians who i was talking to, or their representatives, on the phone yesterday were talking about what the real experience is out in the doctors' offices, not on the floor of the house, or not in some political arena where we're making points, but when you're actually dealing with patients. and the reason the doctors want it, i am a physician, i've been there, i've done it also, i've had phone calls from omaha, nebraska, about whether i could continue to see a patient and every doctor who has practiced in this country in the last 30 years knows that's what goes on. they know that patients don't have health insurance because

they have a pre-existing condition. they know that people who thought they had insurance suddenly get an illness and then find out their insurance company won't cover them because of some technicality or whatever they find. they worry about their own children who finish college at age 21 or 22 and can no longer be covered on their insurance policy. but with the bill that we passed last year, those young people can be covered from age 22 to age 26, until they get a job where they have health care benefits. those are the reasons why doctors want to see this bill stay in place and be enacted. now, what we're going to see out here next week is political theater. i call it the sheep in wolf's clothing, or the wolf in

sheep's clothing, follies act of 2011. we have a piece of legislation which we were told about today, it is exactly one page long and repeals everything that happened, it repeals the prohibition against pre-existing condition exclusions, it allows people no longer to cover children over the age of 22. it sets lifetime limits again on people's insurance policies, all of that occurs here in one single piece of paper. with no debate, no committee hearings, no effort to find out what's going on out there in the community, it's a political document for a political purpose for a part of the republican party. it is not what the american

people are actually feeling. now, what you will hear next week is even more interesting. because we're going to get a fraudulent piece of legislative hot air, they'll say, well, yes we're repealing obamacare. you know, it's strange. they never call medicare johnson-medicare. it passed urn johnson. i wonder why not? it's for all americans. it's for all americans. it's the body that sits here that passes legislation that covers all americans. yet we are now next week going to be offered this piece of fraudulent hot air, it's house resolution 9. they'll say, yes we're repealing that, but we have this. and when you read h.r. 9, it's

one page of nothing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ex-pired. mr. mcdermott: read it, you've got the weekend. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> ski unanimous consent to address the house out of ord. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. speaker, much of my district comprises forests managed by the u.s. forest service. over the past two years, i have received a growing volume of complaints protesting the increasingly exclusionary and elitest policies of this agency. these complaints charge the forest service, among other things, with impose fees on family ka banes held for generations, closing down community events on which many

smaug and struggling mountain towns depend for tourism. mr. mcclintock: ending grazing on specious grounds that cause harm to the local revenue and a policy that can only be called benign neglect, causing severe fire dangers and massive unemployment. practiced in the marketplace, we would denounce these tactics as predatory and abusive. in the public sector, they are intolerable. these actions, events, and ideological driven hostility to the public enjoyment of the public's land and a clear intention to deny the public sustainable use of that land. most recently, the forest service placed severe restrictions on vehicle accents to the plumas national forest despite volumes of public

protest. supervisor connolly, chairman of the bute county board of supervisors, wroits, quote, the restriction applies to such activities as collecting firewood, retrieving game, loading or unloading horses or other livestock, and camping. he goes on to write, quote, the national forests are part of the local fabric, the roads within the national forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors for transportation and recreation. these activities generate revenue for our rural communities that are critical for their survival, end quote. mr. speaker, this is not a small matter. the forest service now controls 193 million acres within our nation, a land area equivalent to the size of texas. during the despotic eras of norman and plan taj net england -- and plantagenet england, 80%

of the land was declared to be the property of the monarch. the people of britain were forbidden access to and enjoyment of these forests under harsh pents. this exclusionary system became so despised by the british people that in 1215, no less than five clauses of the magna carta were devoted to redress of grievances that are hauntingly similar to those now flooding my office. mr. speaker, the attitude that now permeates the u.s. forest service from top to bottom is becoming far more reminiscent of the management of the royal forest in the autocracy of king jonathan of an agency that's supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate and maximize the public's use of the public's land in a nation of free men and free women. after all, that was the vision of the forest service set forth by its ledge dare founder,

girlfriend pinchot in 1905, quote to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run, end quote. in may of 2009, and april of 2010, some of my california colleagues and i sent letters to the forest service expressing these concerns. i've also personally met with senior officials of that agency on several occasions in which i have referenced more than 500 specific complaints of forest service abuses received by my office. all that i have received to date from these officials are smarmy assurances that they will address these concerns, assurances that their own actions have belied at every turn. mr. speaker, it is time for congress to conduct a top-to-bottom review of they have abuses by this increasingly unaccountable and elitest agency to demand accountability for the damage it has done and is doing to our forest's health, to the public's trust, to the government's revenues and to

the nation's economy. and to take whatever actions are necessary to restore an attitude of consumer-friendly public service which was girlfriend pinchot's original vision and for which the u.s. forest service was once renounced and respected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. green from texas. mr. green: i ask permission to speak and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: i was there when the president of the united states of america signed into law the health care act that is thought to be repealed. i was within 20 feet or so of the president, and at the time he signed it, there was a

feeling of great jubilation but also there was a feeling of great consternation. because as he signed it in ink i knew that it was written in tears, written in the tears of the many parents who saw their children with pre-existing conditions and could not get insurance for the illness that their children had. signed in ink, written in tears but it was written in sweat, the sweat of the many persons who toiled for more than 50 years to get health care for all americans. signed in ink, written in sweat, tears and blood. written in the blood of the millions of people who suffered because they couldn't get

health care and of also the many who died because they could not get the insurance that would afford them health care. i was there. i knew what the circumstances were. at the time the bill was signed, we were spending $2.5 trillion per year on health care, $2.5 trillion is $79,000 a second on health care. that was approximately 17.6% of our g.d.p. and by 2018 it would become $4.4 trillion per year which would have been more than 20% of g.d.p. and $139,000 a second. signed in ink, written in blood, sweat and tears. i knew where we were at the time it was signed. in my state we have six million uninsured, 1.1 million in

harris county and 20% of the children in the state of texas uninsured when that bill was signed. still in america we have millions that are not getting the proper attention that they need, but there is the potential to get it because of this bill. at the time it was signed we had more than 40 million people uninsured. the bill covered some 30-plus million people. we had 21 million people working full time and did not have insurance. 45,000 people per year were dying because they didn't have insurance. that's one person every 12 minutes. 21 million people were working full time, did not have insurance. that bill brought people under the umbrella of health care and health insurance. the greatness of america is not

going to be measured by how many great builds we build and -- buildings we build and how many people we cut out of health care. it's not going to be measured which the people we can put in the suites of life. the greatness of america will be how we treat people in the streets of life. this bill addresses people in the streets of life, real people who can die because they don't get the health care that the richest country in the world can provide. i respect those who vote however they choose, but as for me i'm going to stand with those people who need health care and who are going to get it under this bill because pre-existing conditions no longer exist and for edification purposes, for those who do not know, pregnancy was a pre-existing condition at the time the bill was siped. for those who do not know, children -- time the bill was

signed. for those who do not know, children under the age of 26, many of them required to get health care because they couldn't stay on their parent's policy, they can now stay with their parents. the doughnut hole for seniors being closed with this bill. the doughnut hole for edification purposes is that point in time when a senior has to pay for all of the pharmaceuticals that a senior might receive and need, and these pharmaceuticals are expensive. this bill addresses these things. this bill is a lifeline for many persons in this country. i will support it and i will say more about it in the future. i stand with the american people who need health care. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. for what purpose does mr. pence rise? mr. pence: mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent to claim mr. burton's time and address the

house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. the largest abortion provider in america should not be the largest recipient of federal funding under title 10. today with the support of more than 120 of my colleagues, i introduced the title 10 abortion provider prohibition act. i'm grateful for the support of my colleagues within this house and the support of millions of americans who have long to see this action take this decisive action on behalf of our values. the title 10 abortion provider prohibition act would deny any family planning funds under title 10 from going to planned parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. it would ensure that abortion providers are not subsidized with federal tax dollars. now, let me say, to be very

clear, mr. speaker, this legislation does not cut one penny from title 10 family planning funding. i applaud much of the important work that's done at title 10 clinics across this country. breast cancer screening, h.i.v. protection, education, counseling, pregnancy diagnosis. this legislation simply prevents family planning funding from aiding organizations that profit from the abortion industry. federal funding should reflect the priorities and values of the majority of the american people. whatever people think about abortion across this country since roe v. wade, survey after survey have shown that an overwhelming majority of americans oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to support subsidize or promote abortion at home or abroad. it's for that reason that i would assume that most americans would be surprised, if not shocked, to learn that the largest abortion provider in america is also the largest

recipient of federal funding under title 10. but that is most certainly the case. according to their own annual report, planned parenthood received more than $363 million in government funding in 2009 alone. during that time they performed an unprecedented 324,000 -- 424,008 abortions, a heartbreaking statistics. they continue to receive a greater amount of federal funding each year while simultaneously taking over the share of the devastating abortion market in this country. now, look, planned parenthood and its defenders will claim that the money they've received from the government is not -- has not been used to fund abortions, but that is only technically true. current law prohibits the use of title 10 family planning funds, quote, in programs where abortion is a method of family planning, closed quote.

therein lies the loophole. while title 10 money cannot be used to directly fund abortions, common sense says there's no question that taxpayer dollars received by planned parenthood are used to cover allowed expenses like overhead operational costs, thus freeing up other money for the clinics that do provide abortion. and in many of our largest cities, title 10 clinics are literally run -- runned by planned parenthood are literally steps away by abortion clinics operated by planned parenthood, many times in the same building. this would close that loophole. i urge my colleagues to support the title 10 abortion provider prohibition act. i urge our new majority to bring this legislation forward with all speed. let me say again.

the largest abortion provider in america should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under title 10. for the sake of american taxpayers, for the sake of the important work being done at title 10 clinics across this country, and most importantly, for the sake of the defenseless unborn and vulnerable young women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy, we must enact the title 10 abortion provider prohibition act and end the day of taxpayer support for these organizations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. ms. woolsey of california. without objection, so ordered. >> thank you.

mr. speaker, campaign fundraising and spending is way out of control. ms. kaptur: we need a constitutional amendment to fix it. the american people have to help this congress because it will not do it by itself. many years ago will rogers, whose statue sits just outside the doors to this chamber, joked we have the best money that congress can buy and unfortunately that joke has not grown old. after witnessing this past election cycle, the campaign money expended to elect this congress, both chambers, is way out of bounds. the center for responsive politics estimates that a record breaking $4 billion, that's with a b, was spent in the 2010 mid term election. now, $4 billion equals 4,000

million. so $4,000 million was used to elect the current leadership. the number of people didn't change. the amount of money being raised changed. it skyrocketed. the opportunity for people of ordinary means with great talent to gain election to office in our country is disappearing election after election. it's very hard for talented people of ordinary means to raise $4,000 million. to put that in perspective, $4 billion or $4,000 million divides up to about $8.5 million spent on each of the 435 seats in this chamber and those who are up for election in the other. $8,500,000 having to be raised

every two years. yes, an average of $8.5 million per member was expended in each of the races. that is 50 times more than the amount of money the job pays. we would be better off to say to the american people we're going to get rid of all of this campaign donation stuff and just beg our salaries from the public. it would be a lot cheaper, and we wouldn't have to spend it on all those ridiculous ads. imagine the outrageous amount of fundraising that sits on the head of every single member in this chamber. this past congressional election, in fact, was more expensive than even the last presidential cycle in which $2 billion was spent and they said that that was the most expensive race in u.s. history and wall street financeeers were the major contributor in that presidential race.

how is it that our country is trying to recover from near economic collapse and the average american is struggling to make ends meet, with average unemployment is at 9.4%, billions and billions of dollars were thrown at big interest to affect the election? it's because unlike the average american, multinational corporations, all kinds of well-funded ideological groups have deep pockets and they do try to buy access and influence . and this situation makes it that much difficult for average americans have their voices heard here. the american people know this. they're frustrated. these big interests should not outweigh the american people's voice nor vote. the american people should have the primary access and influence here, not deep pocketed interests.

truly american campaign -- the american campaign finance system is out of control. we all know it, and we all know it needs to be fixed. and that ought to be a priority of this new congress. real campaign finance reform thus far has been unattainable because neither party wants to stop the money chase because they both think that next time out they might be the ones to really grab all those gold rings, and too much of that money is plain insider politics, and that's is why the american people feel they are being forced to the sidelines rather than the frontlines in our elections. they feel like they're pushing a big boulder up the hill and somehow this comes back down on them. it is being thwarted again and again by outside interest groups and deep-pocket interests. the congress is unwilling and seemingly unable to act on its own along with supreme court rulings like citizens united

vs. the f.c.c. and buckley vs. vallejo. i want to bring this system under control. there can be no more important priority to this country than giving our politics back to the american people again. i thank you very much. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. >> i ask permission to reclaim my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, history, heritage, and symbols of the united states are constantly under criticism in this country. even yesterday, when we read the constitution of the united states on the house floor, the first time it's ever been done in 200 years, there were some

who complained that it was irrelevant. it's kind of like folks in church that cover their ears when certain sections of the bible are read, they don't want to hear it because it may apply to them. people go to courts nowadays to try to remove our national motto in god we trust. it's above the flag, mr. speaker, though television very seldom show ours national motto. and then there are those who are offended by the american flag, old glory. it's not even displayed in parts of the united states because it offends some people. some people that are included in the group of foreigners who are offended by the american flag. and now we get to today. a report by the "houston chronicle" about marine michael marola a 60-year-old vet from the united states marine corps, he flies there he is he still looks like a marine, this is a photograph from the "chronicle" that shows old glory and of

course the marine flag flying in his backyard on a 20-foolt flagpole. no one has complained, his neighbors like it, kids walk by and compliment him on flying old glory and the marine flag but the neighborhood association has complained and sued. now who is this guy? well, he served the united states marines from 1969 to 1977. he trained with the united states navy seals. after he left the marine corps, he was responsible as sergeant of the guard for raising the flag at n.s.a. right down the road. he's from new york but he got to texas as fast as he could and he has no intention of taking down this flag or flagpole. he's a passionate american, he's a marine. but the, doesn't like it. here's what they have said in their lawsuit. the flagpole is a detriment to the association and causes imminent harm and irreparable injury to the association. the problem with the flagpole of that height and that significance is it flaps in the

wind and causes noise to other homeowners. that's their problem. so they sued him. now, first of all, we have an issue of freedom of speech. the supreme court has said it's a right to fly the flag. speech includes the flying of the american flag. it is the symbol of everything that's good and right about america, that's why it's behind you, mr. speaker, when we go into session every day. marines and sailors and soldiers and members of the coast guard have fought under that flag all over the world and died for that flag so the association can exist down there in northwest houston. right now, we're engaged in two world wars, or two wars in afghanistan and iraq and members of our military are fighting under that flag. but it's flying in the breeze, offends the association because the flapping causes irreparable injury. flapping in the breeze has brought safety to the united states. the flag flying throughout the world and the noise, we can use that word, the sound of freedom

is the sound of that flag flying in the united states and throughout the world. it's freedom of speech, and it trumps the elitist concept that the flag and the flagpole are offensive to the association. you know, mr. marola is a marine, once a marine, always a marine. we're proud of our marines in the united states. they're a unique bunch. that was best said about an army general that there are two groups that understand marines, the marines and the enemy. that's correct system of good for you, mike marola, keep your flagpole up, fly old glory, fly the marine flag, we are proud of you to keep fighting for the flag because freedom of flying the flag trumps the concept that it's offensive to some people. god bless our marines, god bless you, mike marola, and semper fi. that's just the way it is. i yield back, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. mr. franks of arizona. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i very much appreciate the privilege to address you on the floor of the house in this leadership hour designated by the majority leader. there are a number of subjects i wanted to take up this afternoon but i'm first inspired by the statement by -- made by the gentleman from texas, judge, congressman, mr. poe about a marine, mike marola. this is one of these reoccurring -- recurring stories we hear, somebody that's an aclu individual, somebody who gets indignant because there's something somewhere that would allow them

to vent some of their prepackaged hyperventilation against patriotism or the truth or life or the constitution or the declaration of independence or american values or the values of western civilization or judeo christianity. all those people out there are full of indig nancy. an american flag and marine flag offends somebody, i say tough. i'm glad you're there. fly that flag, fly it proud and fly it long. i especially appreciate the statement made by mr. poe about the sound of that flag. my flag is on a flagpole about that same height, 20 foot, and i step out my door in the morning, i check the wind and the weather and i look at that flag and listen to that sound. there's times when i'm sitting there in the dark at night on my deck and i'm hearing that flag from the light that signs around on it just around the corner a little it, -- a little bit, i hear that ripple of old glory, it gives me comfort, gives me pride.

it reminds me of serving here, you can serve americans anywhere around the globe. i of this of a time on march 18, 2003, when i went out here to pershing park, this side of the white house, when there was an anti-war demonstration that took place. i walked around through the mall around the washington monument as they prepared their demonstration. i remember chairman -- former chairman of the judiciary committee john conyers standing on a stage there calling for the impeachment of president bush because it looked like

man there, every kind of discontented anti-cultural -- countercultural american group was there that day. i saw the japanese communist flag, i saw vegetarians for peace, i saw every counterculture group you can imagine. i saw a man there, an aging hippie, he was a photographer, you could tell. he was taking pictures with great pride of this

anti-americanism and he reached in his pocket of his jacket, a worn leather jacket and pulled out of his pocket a flag, an american flag, a silk american flag, a small flag and he used it to wip the lens of his camera. that's an image i'll never forget. but no one stepped up to say he couldn't do that. where were they then? where were the critics of mr. marola then when flags are used as grease rags to scrub the lens of a camera that's taking pictures of anti-americans joined together to protest the saving of our freedom, that marine marola stepped up to defend. those actions against him are offensive to me and i say guard the flag, defend the flag and i'll stand with you. i know judge poe will too. thanks for bringing this up, i appreciate it very much. i came here to talk about a number of things tonight. one of them is the repeal of obamacare. you know freerk dom-loving americans fought this for a long time. -- freedom-loving americans fought this for a long time. it began to come at us in the summer of 2008. when president obama was elected. i should take it back through a little bit of this history. there are some of these components the american people forget about. there was a relatively unknown state senator from illinois named barack obama. he gave a speech before a national convention of the democrat party. and that elevated him into some level of national prominence. there were those what decided they wanted to move him forward to become president of the united states. hillary clinton also decided she wanted to be president of the united states. these two found themselves in -- actually, after john edwards, anyway, locking horn the two of them for the

nomination of the president soif the united states urn the democrat party. i know a little about this. barack obama's movement began in iowa. he brought his people over from chicago and they started a movement and they did battle with hillary clinton in iowa, john edwards was there of course that went on for four years. but we have to remember, that here in 1993 and 1994, when bill clinton was elected president, remember he said, you get a two-fer. you get hillary and you get bill. that wasn't -- i wasn't all that happen by pi getting bill, let alone hillary. but he assigned hillary the job of writing a national health care act. this was a complete takeover of our health care in the united states, socialized medicine in an even purer form than obamacare is today. we watched as this unnolded and she set up meetings, closed door meetings and they cooked up this bill, i recall the flow chart of the hillary care bill.

i had a laminated copy of it in my construction office in iowa. it chills me to think about the expansion of government that emerged from the hillary care proposal. but we need to remember that the relevant component of that is, yes a government takeover of health care that had been advanced in this country for quite a few years, but america's rejection of hillarycare was resounding. if bill clinton were going to maintain his capital as president they had to pull that bill down. the american people were against hillarycare. i was against it. it animated me into getting engaged in politics. i do not think i would be here today if it weren't for bill clinton and hillary clinton stepping in and deciding they would take our liberty. in any case, hillary's credentials, hillary clinton's credentials, now secretary of state, and with all respect, her credentials on health care

were greater than barack obama. he had to build himself foreign policy credentials and had to build himself health care credentials. they turned the presidential nomination debate into a health care debate. they battled their ideas out and found ways to separate themselves from each other and still remain democrats. so we heard all kinds of statements out of barack obama as he competed for credibility on the policy of health care and in the process of doing that they convinced the american people that we were in a health care crisis in america. they intentionally and willfully and i'm talking about democrats in general, conflated two terms. they ended up duping the american people. they conflated the term health care and the term health insurance. to the point now where when we hear someone say health care, we don't know if they're saying health insurance or actually taking care of someone's health. i rekale back then the newly elected governor of iowa, shet

culver, now voted out of office, came out here and sat down with the iowa congressional delegation and we sat in a conference room in the senate and he said, there are 40,000 kids in iowa that don't have health care. we've got to get them health care. and i looked at him and i said, governor, i don't think that's true. i don't think there are any kids in iowa that don't have health care. could you give me an example of a child in iowa that doesn't have health care. no, he couldn't do that. neither could he actually even tell me that he really meant health insurance. i had to feed that line to him so he could understand the difference. it was so embedded in his head that health care and health insurance, conflated terms, could be used interchangeably. mr. speaker, you know if people are having trouble understanding this, i'd use another example of conflated term the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant. i was asked earlier today, what do i have to say about people that accuse me of being anti-immigrant. i said that's offensive.

there isn't anybody in this congress that's anti-immigrant and the reporter stopped and said, what kind of statement is that? surely there are. i said, no there isn't anybody in this entire united states congress that's anti-legal immigrant. everybody i know in here, there's a new class i don't know that well, but i suspect they fit the same mold, everybody i know in here is supportive of legal immigrants. we cheer them, we are proud of them. when they take the oath of naturalization, i often go and give a little speech and welcome them to being citizens of the united states of america. it's a proud time. i present them constitutions and i sign them. i want them to revere it the way i do, the way many of us do, but they conflated the term immigrant with illegal immigrant and then they have the audacity to accuse people of being anti-immigrant when everybody i know to pro-immigrant, pro-legal immigrant and everybody ought to be anti-illegal immigrant but that's how they use the

language to distort the argument and get people confused on where they stand on the issue. so they did that with health care and health insurance. then barack obama was establishing his credentials on health care and began to convince the american people that we had 47 million people if that are uninsured in this country. well, actually, that may be true, may have been true, and you can start down through that list of 47 million and start to subtract from that the numbers that are here that are here illegally. that's at least 12 million, 12.1 million, i believe it's more than 20 million but i'll take the 12 million. i have to guess at the totals because it's been a little while since i've run through these but generally speaking take 47 million listed as uninsured by the democrats and you subtract from that those that are here illegally, those that qualify for medicaid but don't bostonner to sign up, those that make over $75,000 a year and presumably could provide their own health

insurance, those that qualify under their employer but have turned down that opportunity for that health insurance, and when you get done subtracting those that do have options including affordable options and you narrow the 47 million down to those who are not -- do not have their own health insurance policy, and do not have affordable options, that's 12 million. that's actually the 12.1 million number i reach to remember. that's about 40% of the population without their own health insurance policy and without an affordable option. less than 4%. what percent of the health care industry did they want to take over to address those 12.1 million? 100%. barack obama proposed to take over 100% of our health care industry in america in order to get at those less than 4% that are uninsured without an affordable option. and he told us, remember these

things, we are in an economic crisis, we're in an economic crisis and we can't fix this economic crisis, barack obama, unless we first fix health care. and how do we do that? well, the argument against it by him and hillary clinton as well, we spend too much money on health care. what's their solution? spend a lot more, throw $1 trillion at health care. he also argued if you like your policy you can keep it. if you like your doctor you can keep him. and when he said it he knew, he knew that that commitment could not be kept. can't keep your health insurance policy if the policy doesn't exist any longer. you can't keep your health insurance policy if the company doesn't exist any longer. the president said we needed to have more competition in the health insurance industry. the demagoguery that's been going on here the last couple of days of not turning over this country to the health insurance companies again who

are getting accused of being vipers. well, they're in a free market system. they need to be able to compete against each other. the president wants to have and was not successful in this component, wants to have a federal health insurance policy program to compete against the health insurance company. he argued there needed to be more competition in the health insurance industry. and so what does he do? he wants to have the federal government do that. does the president even know how many health insurance companies we have or had at the passage of obamacare? probably not. he's probably not watching c-span right now, mr. speaker, but if any of his staff out there, i can tell you what that number was. 1,300 health insurance companies in america. 1,300 companies competing against each other. not all of them against each other. not one competing and it's all the other 1,299 because there is an act that allows the states to protect the insurance companies within their states

and set up monopolies or quasi--monopolies in the state. i think we should repeal that. we would instantly put those 1,300 health insurance companies in competition with each other. that would achief a goal to lower the costs and increase options and provide people to have more choice for themselves and it would help sustain the doctor-patient relationship at the same time. and, mr. speaker, 1,300 insurance companies, how many policy varieties existed a year ago? 100,000 policy -- health insurance policy varieties existed a year ago. that's not enough competition, 1,300 companies, 100,000 policies? the president wanted a new federal company to compete against them. now, that's because he understands this pattern. we've seen this pattern happen several times in the past. it happened most recently with the school loan program. federal government took it all over. they started out with the

argument that they needed to have another option, a public option for school loans, student loans so that they could provide a little more honest competition with the free market. what do we get out of george miller and nancy pelosi and barack obama and harry reid? we get the complete takeover of the student loan program over a little period of time, a big giant leap came down this hallway in a reconciliation package from the senate actually threaded right in this obamacare bill. what was another pattern? there was a time, i'd say about the time of the bay of pigs there wasn't -- the federal government wasn't engaged in flood insurance. all of the property and casualty flood insurance in america was privately provided in the marketplace because we know what free enterprise does. if there's a demand somebody will come up with a business idea to supply that demand. and so that was going on in the early part of the 1960's until

the federal government decided that really they needed to get in and compete with that a little bit. and so they set up the federal flood insurance program. and what did they do? they drove out all of the private sector competition. and today if you're worried about your house being flooded or your factory being flodded, you have to buy flood insurance from the federal government. and in order for them to compete with the private market they passed legislation that if there was a real estate loan under a federal bank they were

insurance. so they wired in a customer base and they set the premium rates and they drove everybody out of the flood insurance industry, and while all that's going, what do we get? we get a flood insurance program that's $19.2 billion in the red and no private sector competition whatsoever and no way to judge actually the risk. anytime they do have that, they don't develop the technologies, the innovative ways to market. they don't streamline and find ways. they just raise fees and draw fubbeds from the general fund. that's where the $19.2 billion comes in. the federal government decided they wanted to go in and have a little competition so they could keep the private sector flood insurance industry honest because the people that passed that do not -- they are not free market personnel. they are anti-capitalists. they are not capitalists. they are not free enterprise people. if you like your poll -- by a gentleman by the name of berwick who believe we should ration health care and not spend money on the lives of people who may be at the end of their life. sarah palin called that a death panel. put it down in a twitter to explain it all. i think she did that. and we've seen the manifestation with the employments, with the action, with them taking an initiative to counsel people to accept death when there's medicine there that may save them or extend their lives. i don't think that's a business of the federal government to pay people, to counsel others to die quicker. that's what turns out of that

policy, and i'm glad that they rescinded it and i'm hopeful that's not something that creeps back again. if you have a doctor like him it's going to creep back again. that's his philosophy. but obamacare cannot be allowed to stay in this code. it must go. it's got to be repealed and we are about to do that. the first steps and the legislative steps took place on this yesterday with the rules debate upstairs, hours of debate on the rule and how this debate would go on and we debated the rule on the floor today and it passed. and the chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier, did an outstanding job of ushering this all through and has been useful, i think, in negotiating the types of language that allow for a legitimate debate on the floor of the house. far more legitimate than the debate that actually crammed obamacare down the throat of the american people.

and so, mr. speaker, i come here to celebrate the opportunity to begin taking back a significant measure of american liberty. and that is the repeal of obamacare, pulling it out by the roots, lock, stock and barrel. we must pull it all out and we can't leave one vestige of it in. this obamacare, the american people understand. they diagnosed it, they looked at it. they looked at it and they felt it, they ran the tests on it. they began to find out what's in it. remember speaker pelosi said we had to pass this bill in order to find out what's in it. well, there's actually some truth in that because there's no one alive that could have shut themselves up in a room, no matter how brilliant, there's not one person alive that could have shut themselves up in a room for i don't care how long they want, a week, a month, a day or year and read through those 2,500 pages of

obamacare and actually understand each component of it and do an analysis and be able to comprehend the implications of that monstrosity that has now become the albatross around the neck of the president and the democratic party in the united states of america. no, no one could understand it. it is that complicated, but over time we begin to see the complications. republicans predicted many complications that were in the bill. we pointed to a lot of the parts of it that were bad. but there wasn't time, and there wasn't -- there weren't enough people and enough voices to raise all of the issues that are bad about something of that nature. when you take away people's liberty, that is a big deal, mr. speaker. when you take away the right of people to buy health insurance policy of their choice no matter what the money they have, no matter what their health, you have to buy health insurance policy that's approved by uncle sam. now, i kind of like uncle sam. i like his image.

i like his colors, red, white and blue, but i don't like the tarnished image he was given by obamacare. i don't like the idea of besmerching the memory of madison and franklin and jefferson. i don't like the idea of these god-given rights that we have that clearly our founding fathers found with precision do come from god, can be besmerched and take away the freedom of a freedom-loving people. the american people don't like it either. the american people rose up, mr. speaker, and -- so those that argue that they wanted to offer a whole series of amendments on the repeal of obamacare, they said it's not an open rule, it's not an open process but they want to come down here and be able to offer amendment after amendment under an open rule and then they think somehow that by doing so they can perfect a bad piece of legislation. well, their piece of legislation even today can only name four things that they're willing to defend in 2,500

pages. and, of course, they'll demagogue us on every single one of those. the four things they defend are pre-existing conditions language. the republicans will address pre-existing conditions. not with socialized medicine but with a practical, constitutional, free market choice. we need to have that debate. that's been part of our agenda for all along, for several years now. first one. second one is they claim they closed the doughnut hole. well, i thought the dough mutt hole was a bad idea in -- doughnut hole was a bad idea in 2003. it was a constraint in the funding that was available. but they closed the doughnut hole by increasing fees and taxing others and low-income people are already exempt from it. so it isn't of significance from a policy standpoint. it is philosophically and politically, and so they make their second argument, the their second argument, the doughnut hole.