documented, the headstart program, that dmon stratively show that those who complete it do better in life, in high school and in college, and don't -- 88% of them that completed that program in the last 34 years did not go to jail. be damned if we ought not be plussing up headstart and try to have some of these people that we rely upon that are pretty well off themselves i might add, mr. bernanke and the joint chiefs of staff. i been on planes where generals had generals serving generals and that snds all wrong to me. i thank you, mr. chairman. i know it's a difficult job. thank you. >> thank you. >> just a very brief comment p t about the issue of shared sacrifice. it seems to me that, if i recall right, mr. rogers or even

mr. dicks might be able to help me, i believe we have about 40% of the people in this country who pay no taxes whatsoever. and so when you talk about shared sacrifices, thosere people who are being given lots of things by the rest of us, but they certainly are not sacrificing in the sense that other people are who work a pay taxes. >> are you talking about -- >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman rogers, appreciate all the time and effort your committee put into this, mr. dicks, certainly appreciate your input. you know, when we're elected on november 2nd, it was a clear mandate in regards to they want government to operate differently, the american people. but the bigger problem is, we're out of money. and every one of these on this list i will tell you that i can

sit down and go through them and there's a number that are near and dear to my heart that i wish we didn't have t touch. i think that's the case i'm sure with you, mr. dicks, and with the chairman. >> i represent the second poorest district in america, the poorest of my republican. my people are going to be asked to sacrifice more than anybody else except one other district. but they're willing to do it. i've talked to them. they're willing to sacrifice to help this country survive. >> i agree. >> that's what i was trying to say. every one of these programs when you look at each individual program, each of them have merit. each of these programs touch someone, and we all have our pets or we all have those that we think are more important to our constituents. but it is about shared cost and

also shared payment. if there was an easy way around this, i'm sure that your committee would have been dancing in the street and saying, we have a silver bullet, here's how we solve our problems in one quick and easy swoop. but that's not the case. we didn't get here with a single vote. we got here with multiple votes over a lot of years. you know, my experience doesn't compare to this, but as a sheriff when we had a downturn in our budget, in our appropriating authority that gave us the money to spend, we d to sit down and look at our core mission as to what we're supposed to do in government and look at our core mission and that's how we funded it. we had to cut programs that i started that were the last things on the face of the earth that i wanted to cut. but when looked at our core mission, that had to win out and

trump everything else. i think that when we talk about entitlementswe all know that the small portion of the budget we looked at doesn't get us to where we need to go. we all recognize the fact that you can't spend more than you make. the federal government has been doing that, though, where the american people haven't been able to. so at some point in time, we've kicked this can for a long period of time, we're going to have to face stark realities to where we want to go, what kind of future we want to leave to our kids and our grandkids. now, i hear mr. mcgovern talk about the war in afghanistan and iraq. trust me i know what that's about. i've had a son that's served 15 months in afghanistan and two of them heading to iraq in the next four months. so some of us do understand that

sacrifice. but as appropriators, that is one of the core missionsf this government, to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. i think that's one of the -- >> we've done that in this bill. >> and i apprecie that. from a person or father who has three sons serving in the military, obviously that's a huge thing for me. but for my constituents back in my district in florida, fifth district in florida, we have the largest number -- i think we vacillate beeen having the largest number of veterans of any district in this country. 116,000. so we recognize their sacrifice and we certainly understand the need to provide health care for our veterans. that's something that we made a promise and a pledge to do. but as we move along here, this is actually, of all the discussions we're going to have i think over the next couple of

months, probably -- i don't want to mine miez it, but this is probably one of the easier discussions we're going to have. when we goet to the actual budgt of 2012, to the point of the debt ceiling, those are all issue that's are -- this is going to pale in comparison once we get through this. but we have to have a arting point. and mr. hastings, when he brought up about attorneys, i have to laugh because, god bless him, that was never one of my favorite folks as a cop. but with we do need to talk about tax reform. we do need to talk about all of those issues that you brought up. mr. woodall brought up the fair tax, which is a perfect scexamp of the way to level the playing field across the board. when you start talk being about the number of people who don't pay tax at all, i think that's an issue for us in the future. thank you. >> tnk you very much, mr. nugent. let me say that there a vote on the floor and i'm told there's

about five minutes left. and i think there are -- how many votes? three votes. so about three minutes left. if you want to proceed, mr mr. polis. we do have other witnesses so i'd ask you gentlemen to come back if you could. we're kind of winding do, but i don't know that we'll be able to complete that by the time we have to vote. so, mr. polis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the discussion here has clarified what we are discussing, what we aren't discussing today. essentially we're looking at cuts to the important area of domestic discretionary expenditures. i think we've all talked about that that alone is not nearly enough to make any meaningful impact on the deficit. he need to look a entitlements, revenues. part of what i think we're trying to do here is create a creative process where members have ideas to kucut spending. there's a few problems i think with the orchestration of that. one is simply the timing.

i think most members, myself included, simply don't have enough time to get thghtful amendments to cut spending on the floor. our staff has been really each person on my staff focused on cutting spending today. we think weave a couple of amendments, we hope. i just worry at what cost we're rushing this through, you know, tomorrow. i think, given 24, 48, 72 more hours members of congress and their staffs might be able to come up with buildings or tens of billions more in savings that will pass muster on the floor of the house. you know, given the need to do this, of course, but also the ily of this body to take suly another day or two to do that -- again, my staff has been scrambling all day -- i'd like to inquire as to why we are not giving, in my opinion, sufficient time for members to come up with ideas for budget cuts that can pass house muster. >> well, because we're facing a march 4th deadline.

we've got to act in time to pass a bill here, pass it to the senate. >> it's more a questionf 48 -- another two days, talking about kind of going to wednesday or thursdaynstead of require -- from my understanding we have to have our amendments in basically within the next hour and we only saw the cr on friday. so we just had the weekend and today with of course a lot of our legislative services being closed over the weekend. i would hope that there would be more opportunity for members to advance cost-cutting ideas. i think we're missing out on billions of dollars of cost-kugt ideas simplbecause of lodgeistics. >> you'll have an opportunity to offer amendments with a little more time to think about the consequences. >> one more suggestion in that vein. i think that the process would work even better to incentivize members to find creative cuts if there was some ability to reallocate some of the money

that was found in the cuts. obviously they wouldn't be cuts if they could reallocate all of it to prevent cuts in other areas. if they were able to reallocate half of the additional savings to offset cuts elsewhere, it's quite likely that would result in more net savings. because what gets a lot of members going when they see these cuts -- there are cuts that we're all worried about. i was wondering if at's something you would consider asking for, the next time around, giving members the ability to allocate some of the money thathey save to encourage them to find me savings. >> the amendments now, you can do that. if youant to add something back, you have to have a corresponding cut. so, you know -- >> it's my understanding that wasn't possible. >> you can't take from defense and put in health care. >> you can't go across subkmeelt committees. >> mr. chairman, can we recess to go vote and come back? >> i'll be -- i'll just hold the floor. would you like us to return,

then, mr. chairman and continue? >> what i'd like to do is make decision real quickly. we are in the midst of your testimony, we would return with you. would both of our witnesses be allowed to come back after the final vote? we have two additional votes after this one. i don't know when this will close. we'll now be in recess until the end of the mr. chairman, i'm almost done but i know several other people are left to go. >> that's correct. we'll be in recess until the beginning of the last vote. thank you. ack now live to the

house rules committee that is setting the terms of the budget debate for tomorrow. >> the hearing on this, so, that the rules committee will reconvene. we are here for further consideration of hr-1, and i understand that mr. sessions was presiding. he had recognized mr. polipoelu >> well, again, the points i made earlier the produce the better outcome of members to come up with cuts, more time would be helpful number one, and

two, the ability to reallocate in different areas, critically not all of the money saved, but some of the money saved. i want to give a specific example of the unintended consequences of the way that the ut cans are being done. the major transportation artery in my district, highway 36 is facing under this $10 million cut, it had been awarded a tiger challenge grant, and $10 million tiger challenge grant, and of that $1.9 milg ylion of that is under the status of unobligated and that is because the highway of colorado was to leverage more. if they had taken the grant, it would have been a small part of something and they would have had it, but what they were encouraged to do, and they are doing is that they have leveraged it into a $305 million project, including a loan and

that is the intention of what they were to do with the $10 million grant is to leverage it with state and federal funding for the most important transportation artery in my district. now now, with this one broad stroke, grants like this $10 million tiger grant are in fact rescindeded and not just the $10 million that falls apart, but the whole $305 million piece falls apart, because it was based on the tiger challenge grant. i was wondering, and it is a shame that mr. rogers is not here, but perhaps you have some ideas of how to the do it in a thoughtful way to recognizing the difference of something that is truly unobligated and something that has a reason that it hasn't been obligated yet, because it was being leveraged in a way that was consistent with the original intent of the allocation? >> well, i know that the tiger grants were taken out.

something we were kenned abou n concerned about and the fast rail as well. you will have to ask the chairman about that when he comes back, but there was some effort to go after money that had been previously appropriated like under stimulus that had not been obligated yet. and, you know, that was -- i had the problem in my own state, and if i called the secretary of transportation and said, you better obligate and work out this agreement as fast as you can, because they will probably take the money if you don't do that. so that happened in a number of areas and sends a perverse incentive to local jurisdictions to spend this money as quickly as they can even if it is less than optimum, because they need to get it out the door, than perhaps a more thoughtful way. so it sets a perverse incentive

that they should have the money obligated as quickly as possible even if it serves as the less optimum in the outcome. with that i will yield back. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard about shared sacrifice and when we think about it, i think of the shared sacrifice from generation to generation. the intergenration of spending money that we don't have is not thought of the next generation who will have to subsidize the benefits ascribed to ourselves. i think it is hard to look at all of the programs being cut and say that simply none of them are important. many of them are important, and many of them need more money if we had an endless supply of dollars we should look at it differently, but we don't. this year the estimate of the deficit is $1.65 trillion.

we have to be stop spending money that we do not have and ascribing to ourselves benefits that the next generation will have to pay for. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to say wrjust one thin. i heard the argument that we are slamming on the brakes, and that bothered me a little bit, because as mr. titus said, we are not really slamming on the brakes. we are not. there is a generation to think about, and that is a good point, however, if you look at the numbe numbers. we borrow between $4 and $5 billion every day. $5 billion in half of the month, and the other $4 billion. so half and half, because it is about $4.5 billion, so if you boiled it down to one thing, what are we doing with this? this bill is one step forward

and it is this. we are putting the federal credit card up for one day every month, that is all. one day. one day we won't borrow $5 billion out of the whole month, but other days we will borrow $4 to $5 billion every single day to keep going. just as mr. mcgovern said, this is borrowed money. that is an important note and important thing to talk about, but it is only one day. it is a right step, but it is not a slamming on the brakes. it is a small step forward in the right direction and that's all. it is hard to turn the rudder of government one degree. this may turn it a degree and that is about it, but it is at least a step in the right direction. >> thank you very much for being here, mr. dixon. and again, let me just express appreciation to you for your willingness to as we proceed with what is nearly

unprecedented. you have never seen a continuing resolution come to the house floor under a structure that we are considering, that this committee is reporting out right now. i remember them all being closed rules, as you have, and we decided 20 years ago an amendment or two had been made order so we will structure the rules, and so never before in history have we had a cr considered under a structure quite like this. so i want to express my appreciation to you, mr. dix for your willingness to be as cooperative as you have with what we are going to have a free-flowing and vigorous debate on the floor. mr. hastings, of course? >> when is the last time you will recall that we had modified open rule with caps? >> withp caps? >> caps on time limits? >> well, the definition of a modified open rule is twofold. number one a modified open rule has a preprinting requirement,

and second, it does have potentially an outside tell. i don't know if this rule will have caps or -- i don't know. >> well, it does have preprinting requirements and if it has requirements, then i would remind you. >> under the five-minute rule. >> yes, and five-minute rule. >> i have been here long enough where it took three weeks to do the defense authorization. >> maybe my friend from florida is offering a closed rule for this consideration of this? >> i don't care what kind of rule. >> you want an open rule. >> and i'm sure that the gentleman would be happy with an open amendment. >> well, what mr. hastings is trying to get is whether or not there is a total time limit on the debate. >> if i could reclaim my time i will say that the rules committee still has to work this out. we are hoping to have a modified open rule. we will be able to have this

debate once we see the rule. mr. sdixdix is a very busy man, he has spent a lot of time with us -- >> and it is valentine's day. >> and we seem to be engaged in the mark-up on this, but there is no reason for us to do this. mrs. slaughter? >> no, we have another witness from whom to hear. >> would we recess? >> well, i can't tell you, because we are in the midst of the hearing process right now and once we complete the hearing we will make a determination as to how quickly to proceed. thank you, again, mr. dix for being here, and appreciate it, and now we are happy to recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to raise this issue before the rules committee and i think it is probably none of it is a

surprise to any of us on the committee where we are with this. i will just tell you that i'm asking for a waiver. i concede that if i bring language to the floor under an open rule in appropriations that has the word notwithstanding in it, it is an alarm bell that will cause a point of odder to be raised. i will concede that point of order is difficult to order and it is an order under the rule. we are at this point at the cr and this is maximum leverage we will see in the 112th congress. the amendment i am seeking a waiver for is the amendment that shuts off the funding for the automatically appropriated obamacare legislation. most in that congress were not aware that was written into the bill. we dug into it as recently as last week, and working with the crs, they did publish a report on friday that totals $105.5

billion in automatic approa appropriations that are written into the obamacare bill, and those appropriations spanned over 10 years and some of it is load in different ways, but one might think of $10 billion a year, and because this house has voted to repeal obamacare, and we have voted as a majority of the house to remove all sections of the bill, my obamacare and the associated reconciliation package and my amendment goes in and uses the model that i pulled out from my memory of the vietnam war era actually where there is war there that was in a cr and they did it in several ways, but the primary one was the cr in 1974 that stated notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or here to for

appropriated for vietnam or the ajoining countries. i took that back and wrote that modelle into the amendment as essentially a standard and the rationale is this, that first, the automatic funding. with e saw the legislative maneuvering that passed obamacare and that came up and we first passed the bill and then we found out what was in it. most of us on our side of the aisle campaigned to repeal, and de-fund obamacare. we have taken the first step, and now the next step is to de-fund. this would change the implementation of obamacare and two courts have ruled it inconstitutional in part or in full, and for u us not to do that, it is our burden to uphold the constitution of the united states, and there is a conundrum

here, and gentleman, and gentlelady, i'm more sensitive to the burden of the rules committee than probably any time in my now starting the ninth year here. however, i would make the case that we do take the oath to uphold the constitution and not the rule. i followed the process that one would ask a responsible member to do, in that i requested that my language be written into the bill. it was not. this is the next stop along the way, and it is the last stop before the floor. there's been much discussion about letting the house work its will, and about regular order. well, i submit that regular order on a appropriations bill would be before subcommittees and mark-ups before the subcommittees and the full committee and two or three stops, there is a place for a member to offer my amendment and it would have been in order and had it been passed, written into

the base bill with or without the cooperation of the people whocisions on what is written into the bill. i have done my due diligence, and i believe that the amendment passes the floor of the house if it is allowed to be debated and i have a degree of confidence in that, that is, that the dedication to the rules is something that you in this committee have to be more sensitive to than any other members of this congress, and yet, the dedication to the constitution is what all of our oath is to. and so, i'm of this position that i want the house to work its will. we didn't have regular order or my language would have been voted on by now someplace along the way. this is the last stop before the floor. i want a regular order, but i want the house to work its will. i'm asking this committee to grant a waiver for my amendment,

so that there can be a debate on the floor and a vote on the floor. if we do this, we are consistent with the oath of office and also consistent with the fiscal responsibility, and it is not in a one-year cut that would be $105.5 billion, but over ten years it would be, and it is the only tool i know that freezes in place the implementation of obamacare, and if we let it grow, it will grow the roots down in and it is going to be harder and harder to eradicate. i wish there was an easier way to take this cuff from all of you and if there is way, i am happy to do it. i have carried this ball for a year and i have fought for it for a year and af half and i'm not this a moral position to make the moral responsibility to repeal obamacare, but i am in position to lend an ear to the people in

this committee and hear if there is a better one, and i yield my time back to the chairman. >> thank you, very much, mr. king. let me express ap prepreciation extraordinary dedication to a cause that every member of this side of the aisle shares. we have all cast a vote to appeal this outrageous health care bill which undermines creation of job growth and dramatically expands the size and scope and reach of government. legislation that did unfortunately pass was signed last march is something that i believe is potentially very, very dangerous. i share that. i appreciate your recognition of the challenge that this committee faces on this issue. it is true that we are trying to

have the most free-flowing open debate possible under a structure that has been a continuing resolution, it has not been done before. and the one thing that i can assure you is that we are going to pursue every possible means that we can to make sure that we don't fund this program. throughout the process, throughout the last 18 month whence you have been working so diligently on this, i said all along that i felt that the natural step for us would be to take the mandate which hires up to 18,000 new irs agents to enforce the mandate and i have read and i was just talking to daniel webster who happens to be a good friend of roger vinson's, the judge who offered the brilliant 78-page decision and i read every word of it. in fact, he quotes some of my favorite framers federalist 34

which was authored by alexander hamilton and the two authored by james madison, 45 and 51 in which he points to the constitutional questions of this. so i will tell you that my lawyer and i actually went through it together. every one of the 78 pages of the vinson decision. so i will say that i share the goal of getting exactly where you are. i know that i can't speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, but i know that i speak for all of my colleagues here when i tell you that we do, and i want to get there. we know that we are now five or six weeks into this congress, and i believe that personally, that we need to proceed with as open an amendment process as possible. i respect your desire and willingness to continue to work with us so that we can get to exactly where we want to be as

we proceed. mr. sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. king, welcome to the rules committee, again. as the facts you have been a regular visitor to rules committee and bring thoughtful ideas not only to the committee, but with a thoughtful ak tir yi -- articulation of what is behind your ideas. as you know this committee has the awesome responsibility of looking after and shepherd through including proposals crafted by the rules committee from hearing from all sorts of members with great ideas and this is one of the things that which the chairman drier and i want to hear from the floor with this free-flowing process. with that said, sometimes we hear discussions that we may not

have heard as thoughtfully as you presented, and i heard you talk about this 10-year $105 billion health care bill proposal, the funding of what might be known as obamacare. we are actually working under a one-year, right now, cr, and do you know how much money you would be seeking for us, because we certainly wouldn't include the language probably for the 10-year necessarily, but this one-year piece? we would be looking at stopping the funding for this cycle right now, what might be 2011? >> mr. sessions, my language goes through all of that is automatically enacted for obamacare, so it is $105.5 billion, and it freezes it all. if we looked at it on an annual basis, i did not break that apart for the 10 years, because we are under pressure here, but i know that -- i will say that i believe that i read that there

is a one single $5 billion component, and then if you average the balance of it, it is slightly more than $10 billion for this fiscal year. >> so about $10 billion? i mean, we could argue that if the we just did our mathematics and divided it out. and the reason why i say that is because you are not at odds at all with this committee, and this committee as the chairman indicated, you are our favorite son and we welcome what you bring to us, and we are attempting to also make sure that what we do to get it done. and the $100 billion that i think that we have had an active conversation across the country and many americans recognize and i saw on national tv, this is a big week in washington, d.c. with $100 billion. i want you to know that i am very focussed on the amendments that you are bringing, the ideas

that you bring, and i'm also very focused on getting $100 billion done as best as we can knowing that we have tried to sell this across the country, and want to put pressure on the senate and the president with actual spending this year. and so i find your amendment intriguing, and i appreciate your doing this. i, as always, my friend, look forward to continuing working with you, and i appreciate your thoughtful ideas. i give the remained over the time back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one thing i overlooked that i have in my hand is an e-mail from a previous speaker who lived through one of these periods of time in 1995, that makes a recommendation, and i'd ask consent to deliver that to the committee members for their review? is. >> yes. >> and it is from newt gingrich or the the record. in summary, it asks the same thing that i'm asking here as

since he has perhaps as much experience with this type of issue of anybody on the planet, and that is how i raise the issue with him as a matter of fact. this is what he volunteered to respond back to and asked me to deliver this back to the rules committee and i'm appreciative of speaker gingrich of stepping up in support of this and along with other national groups that are engaged. i continue to make my point that i believe this is good for the country or i would not be sitting here. and i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wanted to respond to mr. sessions, well, a couple of things. i know that two judges have found it unconstitutional, but two have found it constitutional and 10 states have thrown it out, so it is not decided yet, but mr. sessions asked how much you would save with your amendment. i don't know that, but i do know

that the nonpartisan congressional budget office said that 30, on ten years, this bill will cut the deficit by over $30 billion, and i certainly want to get that on the record. >> and if i could add into the record, that for the fiscal year fy '11, it would reduce by $4.9 billion for the fiscal year, and the rest of that is going forward in nine years from that point forward. >> and so the question is to make sure that you destroy that and take health care away for an awful lot of people, and that is the problem? >> i don't know if that has anything to do with my calculation. >> well, nobody has mentioned this, but i want to ask this, and i'm asking a lot, $250 has already been paid to senior citizens who are in the doughnut

hole, are you expecting them to pay that back? >> no. everything i have offered with the repeal or this amendment simply stops and freezing it in place, and it does not go back to un-do anything. >> doesn't un-do anything. >> no, it stops it as if you shut the valve off. both money coming and going. that has been the analysis, and we have gone back for more professional opinions than mine and they have concurred in that. >> you do not agree with the cbo? >> there are times they don't agree with the cbo, but i don't always know the assumptions they use to come to the conclusions, abi saw fast-moving tallies on this bill as it moved toward passage so that by the time it passed, i did not have confidence that the cbo numbers were accurate. i would like to see the difference of overall spending and overall revenue and i know there are tax increases in obama care and significant spending and the chairman of the budget committee said that obamacare itself spends $2.66 trillion.

so, that's a lot of money. >> well, i always have said this so many times before that you must get tired of hearing it. but we did don't that health care bill, because we wanted somebody to throw a brick through my window or my life threatened. we did it because 17% of the gdp was spent on health care and rising all of the time and at such a clip that there is no way in the world to keep up with it. and the eventually, the way we are going is to simply paying social security and medicare and very little else and we did it really to try to get it under control health care spending in the united states and i would like to see it work. the same debate you are making now was made about social security and medicare and they would be the ruin nation of the world. >> i made a lot of debates on that myself, and of course, we have two different viewpoints on how to approach this, and we

have heard the wvoice of the house, and 47 republicans in the senate and it is a strong position, and the public seems to be getting stronger in opposition over obamacare over the weeks and months and the more we are in session dealing with it, they are more lining up in the position i'm in, so i think that we owe them an opportunity to have a vote so that they can verify where we are on shutting off the funding. i made the argument for ten months on the tactic to eliminate obamacare is to first pass the repeal, and then begin to shut off the funding and every appropriations bill. i have got writings on that that go back to the middle of last summer at least. and this is the first one and the biggest one and the most leverage and the one that cries out the most to be addressed by this congress of what we did with hr-2 and it is ironic that this is hr-1.

and it is not ironic that hr-2 is to repeal hr-1, and if we miss this opportunity, somehow the perfect symmetry of hr 1 and 2 won't be fulfilled and kind of like a love lost i would say, and something mised thsed that never be recaptured again. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. king, for coming. i want to echo the comments made by the chairman and mr. sessions in terms of our feeling like we are with you on this obviously, since every single one of us voted to repeal obamacare, but you pointed out something that needs to be mentioned. we voted to repeal -- well, i think that probably the reason that this is hr-1, because we knew we were going to be facing the continuing resolution.

we knew that we were going to have to continue the funding for the federal government. and obamacare was number two and appropriate to vote on it immediately and i don't have a problem with that at all, but we know what happened with the bill when it went over to the senate. at first, mr. reaid said no vot on it and then a dust-up in egypt and he had a good cover when people were paying attention to other things, and he simply brought it up for a vote, and of course, the the vote fail. now we have been accused over and over again of wanting to shut down the federal government, and we have said over and over again, that is not our intentions. we want to go forward with the continuing resolution. we are sorry that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not get their appropriations passed last year,

but what do you think would happen if p your amendment is put on the continuing resolution when it gets to the senate? >> well, it's fitting into the same category as what might happen with the $100 billion in cuts. it comes down to where are the votes and where's the leverage? i have made the point that there's not a dime that can be spent by the federal government unless the house at least concurs, and so that's something that can't be seen at this point. if we had not sent the repeal of obamacare over to the senate, then we would be accused of not picking up an issue that we believed in. and if we don't cut off the funding to the implementation of obamacare, the same accusations that we expected then would come on this. >> but we are cutting off the funding of the implementation of obamacare in this bill. we are cutting off the funding as we, as it is available to us to cut off in the continuing resolution.

so, all of the funding that we can identify that fits twhn category is being cut off in the continuing resolution. >> and do you know what that total? >> no, i have not added it up, but it is -- i don't know $300 -- almost $2 billion. >> and well, while that is going on, there is $4.9 billion in fiscal year automatically appropriate and then balance of roughly another $100 billionp appropriated to implement obamacare unless we find a vehicle to shut it off, obamacare is going to be implemented and it could happen on our watch while we are cutting a couple billion. >> but we have a lot of vehicles coming up to shut it off. we have the budget process and the appropriations process coming up, and so we have your assertion is that this is the only chance that we have, and i don't believe -- >> the best chance.

>> that is not the case, because we will have lots of opportunities to cut off the funding for obamacare, and again, i expect us to pass appropriations bills and through the appropriations process we can cut the funding off in future years and that is an option available to us. >> i would submit that the budget process is not a vehicle, but the appropriations will be, and each one of them will be significantly less in the leverage. so that if the leverage diminishes then the senate and the president's leverage diminishes appropriately. so this is the vehicle. >> but if we send it over on the resolution, and the senate rejects it, there is no leverage. and your argument is that there is leverage because it is on the continuing resolution, but the senate doesn't have to accept the continuing resolution as you just said. >> i would submit that if the house is not willing to insist, the president will get what he

wants eventually. >> well, the house has insisted, and we will continue to insist that this not be funded. every single one of us have taken as strong a position as you have taken. i have railed against obamacare as much as anybody in this body. i have spoken against it over and over again and i write letters against it over and over again and editorials against it -- i have is no positive thing to say about it. but, as you know, you are asking us to change the rules here in the rules committee, and what that does then is to open us up then to the same accusations that were made of our colleagues across the aisle over the last four years in terms of their not being fair to us. and i think that is putting us in a very tough position.

>> mrs. fox, i never thought i would be sitting here asking for a modified open rule in order to shut off the funding to obamacare was the implication that i should have somehow made deference, and not made the ask. this is too important not to ask and it is too important not to come before this committee and have it written into the bill. i would have liked it to have gone before the appropriations committee or open order, but now we have a rule that we can't have the vote or the debate unless there is a waiver provided by this committee. it is the only place i have this argument to make, and as i see it, maybe there is a disagreement tactically, and you may believe that the smaller appropriation bills offer a better opportunity to shut off this $10 5 billion, but i believe that the more money at stake, the more leverage you need. >> but mr. king, you have another opportunity to do this. you can offer the amendment on

the floor, and any member can offer any amendment on the floor, and you know that. and so, we are not shutting you out from offering your amendment on the floor. >> i announced as i sat down here that there will be a point of order raised, and the point of order is likely to be sustained and i have reservations about challenging the ruling of the chair if i think they have a parliamentary point. it is hard for me to make that argument when i have come before this committee to say, my amendment will not be in order. i understand it will not be in order and i knew that from the middle part of last summer. i marched down through all of the things that you can ask can a member to do. my franchise is as precious as anyone in the congress and we have the same passion to oppose this issue, but i have tried every other alternative and if this alternative does not succeed, the next thing i am facing is offer the amendment on the floor, and listen to somebody raise a point of order,

and ki and i can reserve my right to act, but to challenge the ruling of the chair when i have told my committee that i don't believe that my amendment is in order, and that is why i am here asking for the waiver because it is more ally inconsistent for me t do that, but it is morally inconsistent for this committee under the astute leadership of the chairman to go through the congress without a modifieded rule. i expect that to happenn't. and if i am not successful tonight, i hope we are not thinking that if we were going to write an unfunded modified rule, i hope we didn't do it to de-fund obamacare. >> i would like for you to offer your amendment on the floor to de-fund obamacare, and that would be the fairest way to do

it. again, i join with my colleagues and i'm sure that every single one of us are going to say the same thing to you. we agree with you that this program should be de-funded. it is my opinion an abomination to this country that this bill was passed and i find it curious that my colleagues on the other side have talked about how this process going so fast. they want to slow down everything that cuts fund, but always in a hurry when it comes to spending. this bill was pushed through. obamacare was pushed through. any time they want to spend money, they are in a big hurry to do it. when we want to slow down the spending of money or cut funding, all of the sudden, we are in too big of a hurry to do it, and we should slow down. but i appreciate your efforts. i have appreciated your efforts for the last year and af half, as i said, because you have been

joined many, many times by all of us here except the new people who are here saying basically the same thing. i appreciate your efforts. >> thank you, mrs. fox. >> i wanted to say that is one of the most fascinating discussions i have witnessed in the rules committee for a long time and i u think that you are being told in a polite way no, but as you know the rules committee can do whatever it wants to do and it can grant the waiver and if they want to make it an order, they can, but i want to point out for the record even though i strongly disagree with what you are doing, there are eight of them and four of us, and i can't help you even if i wanted to. thank you. >> well, thank you, mr. mcgovern and thank you for joining together for the state of the union address. >> that was a great time. we were seat mates. >> jim was my date that night.

[ inaudible ]. >> i would be looking forward to having that dialogue stronas lo it can be constructively enabled. thank you. >> i just wanted to tell you how happy i am that wow were here, mr. king. i think that you are a real champion on issues like this, and i appreciate what you have done on the fair tax time and time again and i have put this in that category of things that somebody has to stand up and say it. there's no doubt that you have your colleague's attention and this committee's attention and

the media's attention and with those kinds of talents combined with the bright minds that mr. bishop just talked about, i have no doubt that success is around the corner and success that we are all seeking. i thank you for having the courage to push this all of the way to the end. >> thank you, mr. woodall. >> mr. king, great seeing you tonight. you know, you have really stood out amongst a lot of folks in regard to the push and the desire in regards to de-funding obamacare. i don't think that you have to convince at least mr. drier over this way about doing just that. i think that's a mission of ours, and to get this country straight again particularly in regards to how it relates to obamacare. we want to get together, and we need to work together. we need to come up, and i think that, we have heard of mr.

bishop talk about the brightest minds, and i'm not the brightest mind, but i am certainly the one who loves to hear a good idea, and you have a good idea. and we need to be able to work cooperatively to get to the end-game. the end-game is to de-fund obamacare, and that is where we all want to go, so with that said. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an interesting conversation, one that i keep hearing in my mind. please, please, please don't do this. but at the end of the day, here is what i am thinking. we will find a way to accomplish the goal. i novi a bill that has been, hopefully co-sponsored by many members of the freshman class and the republican conference to do what you are doing which is to de-fund obamacare, period. the process by which we get there is important, and that we get there is more important.

>> thank you, mr. scott, i appreciate your interest in this, and i am aware that you have been active to put language and initiative in to defeat obamacare and i appreciate that and supportive of that, but my point is that in this environment with the other party in the majority of the senate, and the president of the signature bill at stake, we nood -- we need a way to have leverage to accomplish this, so each piece contributes to the cause, and you are and we are, thank you. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your courage. it takes courage to stand alone and you are standing alone, and i appreciate your doing it. you have a great idea. >> well, thank you very much, mr. webster. it looks like we have wrapped this down to a moment for me to conclude my statement. >> absolutely. >> and i could maybe reach back

to some cassette in my mind and turn this thing up to the maximum amount of marketing, but instead, i would say this, i have had the ear of this committee, and on both sides. it has been a good and healthy discussion. i believe, and i would not be here if i didn't believe i am right. i believe this is the best opportunity with the maximum amount of leverage, and the best timing that we could have, and i think that of those who don't believe that they should come up with a proposal that has a better prospect of success, and i'd be happy to have that kind of dialogue, and it would be maybe more constructive before this committee would make a final decision. however, whatever it is, my level of intensity is going to go in a direction that is designed to bring about the end of obamacare. that you can count on, mr. chairman. however this committee decides. i'm hopeful that the wise minds

on this committee can come up with a better solution and ki know about that or participate in that discussion. >> thank you very much, mr. king, and i assure you as we proceed dedication to the constitution and the institution, and we will, obviously be taking your ideas and thoughts into consideration as we proceed. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> the commeittee is going to stand in recess. i can assure my friends that we will ha will have a copy to them as quickly as we can. we will be in touch with you.

okay, so i don't think it will be hours. but we'll, let you know as quickly as we can. so the committee stands in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> after this break, the rules committee approved a rule to govern the debate on the spending of this fiscal year. while the committee was focusing

on current spending, administration officials were preparing to testify about the proposed budget for the next fiscal year. the white house budget director before the white house budget committee this morning. the committee chairman is republican paul ryan of wisconsin. live on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also live at c-span 3, to 30 p.m. eastern, health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius will testify before the senate finance committee chaired by democrat max baucus. we will take your questions and comments and look at the day's headlines in a few moments, live on "washington journal." the house will be in session at 10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches with members returning at noon to continue the at noon to continue the