higher premiums because of this law, the quality issues, all of the quality sorts of things that we all believe in so strongly and which this law actually harms because the only person who knows what's quality health care for you and your family is you and your family and your physician and what this law does is removes that decision making power from you and your family and your physician and it replaces it with folks here in town who believe they know best what kind of health care you ought to receive. and then the responsiveness of the system and innovation in the system and choices, mr. chairman, choices that have been remarkably limited and will continue to be limited by this law. so what mr. rehberg has done here is said, the only way we can begin to dismantle this, which is what the american people desire in significant numbers, majority numbers, is to say, you can't use resources that you have in your department to implement the law itself. .

if the states and federal government would listen to the judge in florida, then they would realize that is their responsibility. it is their responsibility not to implement this law. i urge adoption of the amendment and i encourage my colleagues to get to work on the principles of health care which this law absolutely ignores. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: the rehberg amendment would increase net budget authority by $2 million in fiscal year, 201, and total of $5.5 billion over the next several years. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. all across the country this morning millions of americans got up for another day of searching the job search websites or looking at the want ads, enduring another day of

courtesy interviews, pointless discussions with potential employers, and dreading the arrival of the letter carrier today because he's going to bring one more credit card bill or doning letter for a bill they can't play. life has become a nightmare for 15 million unemployed americans and here we are in the house of representatives, i don't think many of them got up this morning and said, i really hope the congress for the second time in a month debates the repeal of the health care law. i think what our constituents said why don't they get to work working together to create jobs in this country. instead, the tower of babble that the house of representatives has become this week has produced yet another meaningless debate on repeal of the health care law which followed on the heel of defunding planned parenthood last night. it's not bad enough when this bill doesn't do in having us work together to create jobs for the american people, it's bad in

what it does do. and it's very important that the members understand the real world consequences of the chairman's amendment. if his amendment passes, and the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes wake up one day to discover that an insurance company won't sell their son or daughter insurance because they have juvenile diabetes, or will charge them four or five times the amount of the premium because they have juvenile diabetes, the person at the department of health and human services who can step in and stop the insurance company from doing that won't be able to. because this amendment says, let's tie the hands of the people here to enforce the law. if an insurance company says to a family grappling with a malignancy or bran stem injury, you run out of coverage, you hit your lifetime limit, too bad.

so be it. the person who would be in a position to do something, to require that insurance company to pay those hospital bills, won't be able to do that because this is happening. with all due respect, we have had a debate about using names this morning. i think we are using the wrong name for this amendment. this should be called the insurance company bill of rights. because what it does is say that anything, any insurance company wants to do at any time, so be it. the american people deserve better than this. members of the house should vote no on the rehberg amendment and get back to business of putting americans back to work. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: may i inquire how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from montana has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from connecticut has 15 1/2 minutes remaining.

mr. rehberg: may i ask the gentlewoman from connecticut how many speakers she has left? ms. delauro: sorry? mr. rehberg: may i ask how many speakers you have? ms. delauro: several. mr. rehberg: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from montana reserves. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: the rehberg amendment increases net budget authority in the bill by $2 billion and next year and total of $5.5 billion over 10 years. increases the deficit, puts the american people back in the hands of the insurance companies, again it's a classic bait and switch. i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: i thank the gentlelady for yielding to me to participate in this debate. it's really quite amazing the alternative reality that has been created on the republican side. they never liked the health care

bill. i think people know that already. but it is the law of the land. they tried to repeal it. they haven't been able to do it. but the health care bill passed. under the laws of the united states, people have certain rights under this legislation. for example, insurers cannot drop someone's coverage when they get sick. seniors are saving money on prescription drugs. young adults to 26 are getting back on their parents' insurance. and small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. the republicans said they like all of that. they like that. when they give us a bill, they are going to have all that in it. but they meanwhile want to stop those things from happening under the existing law. defunding amendments will end these benefits, putting health insurance companies back in charge of americans' health care. we should realize that when we

have a law, it should be implemented in a reasonable, responsive, and efficient manner, states want that. insurers want it. businesses want it. health care providers want it. trying to starve a program so we cannot implement it in a reasonable manner is irresponsible. defunding amendment offered in the guise of budget austerity are one step away from the largest budget cutter, the affordable care act. if this amendment passes, the act will be stopped and there will be no prohibition against discrimination for over 100 million americans with pre-existing conditions. no prohibition on insurance companies canceling your coverage when you get sick. no prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits. no required coverage for young adults on their parents' policies.

no assistance of seniors struggling for the cost of drugs in the doughnut hole. and no free annual checkups in medicare. no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health insurance. the full impact of this legislation will happen in 2014 and that requires the department of health and human services to put into place its implementation so that we can move in a clear, reasonable path to accomplishing these goals. repeal or even this funding proposals is a boon for insurance companies but enormous setback for american families. that's why i urge all members to vote no on this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: using the deficit argument is simply a diversion to draw attention from the way of the real issue, the huge cost of this program. i yield 30 seconds to doctor

burgess of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. seeing mr. waxman, the gentleman from california, down on the floor reminds me when this bill passed the congressional budget office told us, $142 billion in savings over 10 years. but let's spend 30 days later the chief actuary at c.m.s. came forward and said the bill was going to cost $318 billion additionally over that time. that's a $450 billion swing. even in the united states congress we ought to be able to get closer than that. a resolution of inquiry with chairman waxman, said let's sort this out. what did they know? when did they know? was congress given inaccurate information before we voted on this very large bill? i was never allowed to bring that forward. we can solve that last year -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. burgess: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: c.b.o., repeal of health care bill would add $230 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years.

rehberg amendment would add $2 billion in 2012, total of $5.5 billion over the next several years. let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleagues. another day on a bill that will not create one single job in the united states of america. in fact, a bill that will cost thousands of americans their jobs. the response just the other day from our republican colleagues, quote, so be it. now we have an amendment before us to strip away critical patient protections for consumers, for our constituents. this is an insurance industry dream amendment. we heard from our colleagues they want to listen to the american people. they have not had one hearing, not one, to listen to the people

around this country who are already benefiting from this bill. the provisions to insure that kids with diabetes, leukemia, asthma are not discriminated against by the insurance industry anymore, not one mom was heard from. provisions to make sure that our constituents aren't denied their coverage when they need it the most? there are thousands of americans out there already benefiting from that. didn't listen to one of them. now under the guise of trying to save the taxpayer money, they are offering an amendment that according to the independent, nonpartisan congressional budget office will increase the deficit over the next 10 years by $230 billion. and when it's fully implemented the bill, and you strip it away, it will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit. now, i just urge my colleagues

to read the letter from january of this year from the head of c.b.o. to the speaker of the house. it's right in there, plain and simple. we had a hearing in the budget committee just the other day. your colleagues on the budget committee may have talked about it. the head of c.b.o. was on the committee and members on the republican side said surely you must have arrived this deficit number through double counting. head of c.b.o. said, very plainly, there's no double counting. read the lips of c.b.o. this adds $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years, $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. so don't come to the floor here an pretend that by enacting this amendment as part of an effort to save taxpayer dollars, this will add more red ink to this nation's credit card. the same kind of red ink we saw being added over the years and years and years of the prior

administration. we are trying to turn the corner on that. but all this does is add more. and the cost is not just in terms of higher deficits, the costs are to the people throughout this country who are going to lose the important protection that this bill has provided them. shame on this house for spending time doing this rather than focusing on jobs and getting this economy moving. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you. reserves. the chair: the gentleman from montana reserves. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: rehberg amendment increases the deficit by $2 billion in 2012, $5.5 billion over the next several years. and does nothing to create a single job. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two

minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to oppose the republicans' latest and cynical and callus attempts at reform. the gentleman from montana would be dismissive of the issue of deficit reduction. and that somehow that's now labeled a distraction. i think that adding $5.5 billion to the deficit when we should be going in the opposite direction is far more than a distraction, it's a moral imperative that we not do that. in the past six weeks eave seen the true face of the republicans' legislative agenda. rather than work to create jobs and improve our economy, they focused on baseless attacks on american families. with their repeal and replace bill, they demonstrated that they don't mind if insurance companies drop patients as soon as they get sick or the families wouldn't be able to save thousands of dollars by keeping young adult children on their family plan. and with this amendment, we now see their outrageous attempts to strip funding from the implementation of the health care law. let's be clear, our colleagues

across the aisle want to yank funding from a law that is already helping millions of americans. this amendment would seize funding from the agencies and workers who have already been tasked with implementing the most essential tenets of the affordable care act. provisions which are already making a world of difference in millions of lives. if this amendment passes, seniors will be thrown back into the medicare part b doughnut hole coverage gap and be forced to pay huge costs for think drugs. women in desperate need of an annual mammogram will once again face prohibited co-pays or perhaps face denial of coverage for the pre-existing condition of simply having ovaries. our nation will once again return to the egregious practice of denying so many young children coverage for their health history that they cannot control. . rather than roll back the consumer protections and freedoms that unshackled americans from the whim of private insurance companies, republicans should be working with with us to build on and improve the health care system.

instead they wish to use this amendment process to reverse the progress that we've made with these vital health care reforms. i'm glad the american people it see their hypocrisy right out in the open. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from montana reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to raise a part of parliamentary inquiry. mr. chairman, would it be appropriate under the rules that we divide the question so that members can vote individually on whether to deny seniors coverage for the doughnut hole, to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, to deny small businesses from getting the tax benefit in this bill? mr. weiner: all the different things, would it be appropriate? i haven't finished my parliamentary inquiry. would it be appropriate to divide the question that way so all of the benefits that americans get they can see individually where my republican friends stand on them? the chair: i thank the gentleman for his inquiry. under the order of the house of

february 17, 2011, even if otherwise deadvicive, an amendment to this bill is not subject to a demand for a division of the question. mr. weiner: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: the a rehberg amendment would increase the deficit by $2 billion next year, total of 5ds.5 billion over the next several years -- $5.5 billion over the next several years and that is the estimate of the congressional -- the nonpartisan congressional budget office. increases the deficit and does not create any jobs. and let me yield one minute to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for a minute. ms. schakowsky: thank you. i would like to say to the republicans, be careful what you wish for. your star is fading on this effort to repeal, to defund the

affordable health care act. only about 18% of americans now are for full repeal of this bill. and are you the ones that are going to go and tell the american people that insurance companies can drop you when you get sick? children with pre-existing conditions, well, they can be denied coverage. you go explain that insurance companies kim pose devastating annual and lifetime caps. and that pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can be denied coverage. and that being a woman will continue to be a pre-existing condition. that's your mission if you were to succeed. in passing this legislation the american people finally said, this congress said that health care is a right. that it should not impoverish individuals or cause them bankruptcy. vote no.

the chair: the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: at this time i am pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from georgia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i stand in strong support of the rehberg amendment. and i do so because this health care, this very controversial bill which was passed through strong arm tactics last year during a time period when the american public was crying out against it, this was a product of the backroom deal making in washington, d.c. this is one reason why the democrats lost control of the u.s. congress. it wasn't so much the bill, it was the process. but let's talk about the bill. an individual mandate that's already been ruled unconstitutional by two judges, a mandate which the governor of alaska is saying he's not even going to implement the rule, this is hardly a law that's bringing america together.

this bill needs to be put on the back burner and let us retool it and rework it and i believe that's what the americans want us to do. it destroys the doctor-patient relationship. one thing that's clear is that people do not want the insurance companies telling the hospitals and the docs how to conduct med sip. but they sure as heck don't want government bureaucrats in washington, d.c., and all the hundreds of new agencies and the i.r.s. agents coming in and telling the doctor how to conduct medicine. the cost of this, there's not one credible report that says this will bring down costs. and i keep hearing this hollow cry from democrats suddenly with 15 million people unemployed that they are concerned about jobs. i haven't met in the first district of georgia or anywhere else i've traveled in this country one business person who said, this is a great deal. and i want to say this about 26-year-old children. as a father of four and i have three kids under 26 years old, they're old enough to take care

of themselves. they don't need the nanny state coming in. i have raised them to be responsible at the age of -- responsible. at the age of 21 i expect them to go out and get their health care. the average age in vietnam was 19 years old, world war ii probably the same. and we have soldiers in harm's way all over the world who can take care of themselves but we're saying, but, come home to mommy and daddy, we'll take care of you until you're 26 years old. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rehberg: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: and let me say this, mr. chairman, if you talk to the nation's governors, democrat and republican, one of the biggest strains on their expenses right now on their budget is medicaid, yet this bill increases the medicaid rolls, 60 million people without funding it. if we want to break our states we need to keep this bill. if we want to help them we need to repeal it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i remind the gentleman from georgia that the taxpayers pay for congress' health insurance as well. and any children that we have are covered under our health insurance. and we are in a ratherified air in that regard, we have health insurance, as mr. miller pointed out. we go to the head of the line if there's anything wrong with us. that is not the case for millions of people in this nation. and that's what the other side of the aisle would like to continue. that millions of people will not have the same kind of health care that we in the united states congress have. and with that let me yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. caps. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for -- mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for a minute. mrs. capps: i strongly oppose this amendment because it's harmful to the american people, it adds significantly to the deficit and i have listened to my constituents and they tell me, they're opposed to this defunding stunt. why? it's health care reform -- if health care reform is defunded, who will ensure that seniors in the doughnut hole receive half

price medications this year? who will process employers across the country that they're entitled to this year? who will keep insurance companies honest, protecting mens -- americans from coverage denials and limits on care. the affordable care act is law. if endorsed by the medical american -- it's endorsed by the american medical association, an attempt by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to repeal it have failed. instead of fighting the same battle over and over again and living in the past, congress must turn its focus now to what the american people really care about, creating jobs and strengthening our economy. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: at this time i'm pleased to yield to another physician who clearly understands the cost of health care, mr. gingrey of georgia. the chair: mr. gingrey of georgia is recognized for how many minutes? mr. rehberg: two minutes. the chair: two minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i stand wholeheartedly in support

of his amendment to repeal the funding of obamacare. obamacare, in not just my opinion, but many others have expressed this, is possibly the worst piece of legislation passed in the history of this congress. in fact, it would probably be better called patient pain and nonaffordable care act. because it accomplished none of the goals that president obama set out to accomplish, especially not lowering the cost of health insurance. so, we in this body, the republican majority, in our initial week in the 112th congress, we passed a repeal of obamacare. unfortunately our colleagues in the senate, the democratic majority, stopped that. in our obligation to the american people to defund this wrongful piece of legislation, it is costing jobs all across this country. talk about things like who's going to solve the problem of the doughnut hole, as the

gentlelady from california just said. i'll tell who you solved it, big phrma solved it when the president and the democratic majority in the last congress broke their arm and made them agree to cut their prices in half for their brand name drugs. so, there are other ways to solve the doughnut hole problem than having the federal government take it over. in regard to having children remain on their health insurance policy of their parents until age 26, why are they going to have to do that? because they have no jobs. and why do they not have any jobs? because of the job-killing bills like obamacare and stimulus and bailout. i could go on and on and on. we have an obligation to defund this and to replace it with the right kind of legislation that will accomplish the goals of lowering the health costs so that many more americans can now have health insurance and have good health insurance. mr. chairman, with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i'd like to inquire about the remaining time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from montana has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. gar mendy. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, it's often said that the facts are lost in the fog of war. the facts are lost in the fog of this debate. we should step back for just a few moments and see what this total picture is all about. this is nothing but a class war assault on the working men and women and the poor in this country and literally around the world. take a look at all of the provisions and add them all up. the designation of clinics that provide care to the poor and unemployed. the decimation and the significant reduction of medicaid, providing care to those who do not have high

incomes, including the elderly and the disabled. the decimation now in this of the health care proposals, turning over to the insurance companies once again the opportunity to go after working men and women and deny them the coverage that they need. taken into total, taken in total and include the tax provisions for the great wealthy who will ultimately have their tax breaks paid for by the working men and women, put it all together and this is class warfare by the republicans against the working men and women of this nation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: i reserve my time. the chair: reserves. the gentlewoman from connecticut. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: just to say to the gentleman from montana, i'd like to reserve. mr. rehberg: i'm reserving my time to close. i'm reserving my time to close. the chair: the gentleman from

montana reserves. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: account chairman let me know who has the right to close -- can the chairman let me know who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from montana. the gentlewoman from connecticut has the right to close. you. ms. delauro: i have the right to close. mr. rehberg: on my amendment? the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, mrs. jackson leefment the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for -- ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for a minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady 800 seniors gathered just a year or two ago expressing their horrific opposition to the idea of being overwhelmed by this doughnut hole. my colleagues today are telling seniors all over america, we now

will close the door on you again. we will ensure that you will not have the money to pay for your rent or food because you will be paying these ridiculously high costs for your prescription drugs. that's what this amendment will do. it will close down potentially the affordable care act that is providing a lifeline for our seniors. and then if you are laying on the sick bed in your hospital room and you need more care and more care to restore yourself, you have a doctor and an administrator come in and say, your insurance company called and they're pulling the plug. not the plug that the doctors are pulling, but they're pulling the plug, you have no more money, get out and try to do the best you can. $230 billion this amendment will cost us. but more importantly, this bill is not the affordable care act unconstitutional. only two courts have rendered that and frankly the supreme court will speak --

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i inquire if the gentlelady from connecticut is the last speaker? the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut -- mr. rehberg: or does she have someone before i go last? ms. delauro: i have just a last speaker. mr. rehberg: you have one more? besides yourself? ms. delauro: there's just one more speaker. mr. rehberg: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i will take 0 seconds and i have one more speak -- 30 seconds and i have one more speaker. mr. rehberg: i reserve. what i am attempting to do is be the second to the last. ms. delauro: thank you. i yield myself 30 seconds. let me just repeat be clear

about what this amendment does. it does not create jobs, it adds to the deficit, $2 billion next year. $5.5 billion over the next several years. does nothing to bring the deficit down. it increases the deficit, and it puts the american people back in the hands of the insurance companies. again, with that i yield a minute to the -- the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. i think you are second to the last. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not the speaker of the house, not the majority leader. you know what i do? i represent more people in the united states congress than anybody sitting in this body consistently. after every -- everything is said. i probably have more town hall meetings, more of everything in my congressional district. and i have more town hall meetings. 75. in those 75 they toll me the same thing. they do need health care reform, they need to control the cost of

health care. but they get it. they understand. this does not do it. you would not need waivers for unions and big businesses if it was working. you would not need legislation to fix the 1099 on the penalty for the $600 purchases if it was working. you wouldn't have to cook the books as they attempt to do by counting a $750 billion tax increase as a reason to suggest that if we repeal it it's going to cost the government something. that's funny money. it's not true. nobody in america believes it. get out. listen at your town hall meetings. travel around my state. do the 75 town hall meetings like i did. you will find. you cannot control the cost of health care if you leave defensive medicine out. we gave the people opportunity to join the federal system. it was turned down by democrats in the committee. they voted it down on a party-line vote. this is not the way to reform health care. it was done very quickly. in fact the sponsor of the bill

said, i didn't need to read the bill. that's what i have staff for. it was so large. it was done so quickly. there was not enough input that the people of america know this is not the right thing to do. it's a job killer. it's going to bust our budget. in the end it does in fact cost us $2.6 trillion to implement in the first 10 years. please support this. let's begin defunding obamacare. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield the remainder of the time to the democratic leader of the house. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for a minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. chairman. i commend the gentlelady for her leadership on a very important issue. the health and well-being of the american people. i rise in opposition to the amendment that is on the floor today and also the underlying bill of which it is a part.

the american people are desperate for jobs. they sent us here to work together to create jobs. and not in the six weeks of this new majority, not one piece of legislation has come forward to create one job. showing the lack of ideas to do so the republican majority has chosen instead to change the subject. to take up a bill of such consequence without hearings, without really an open process to make amendments to it with the illusion of open debate. now they come before us again without hearings in amendment form to this bill and say they want to repeal -- have no funds go to enact provisions of the health care bill. which was passed before. let's talk about the consequences of your actions here today. what would it mean to people in

our country? if this amendment were to prevail. it may prevail on this floor, which is driving itself into irrelevance with the amendment process that is here, but that's another subject. let's talk about the subject of this amendment. let's talk about what this means to america's families. let's talk about a family that came before a hearing that we had earlier in january. we heard from stacey ritter, she has 12-year-old twins. when those adorable little girls were 4 years old, they were both diagnosed with cancer. imagine if that happened in your family. as they take years of treatment and recovery, their mother said they were lucky. they did have health insurance.

but the additional cost of the care for these children drove their family into bankruptcy. the children got well. thank god. but they had a pre-existing medical condition for the rest of their lives. until this bill came along. and now their mother was pleased to testify they are not to be the object of discrimination because they have a pre-existing medical condition. they will not face annual or lifetime caps on the benefits they receive. these healthy young girls now will be able to proceed in a healthy way not discriminated against. or let's talk about verna branch, diagnosed with breast cancer 15 years ago, ever since she has struggled to find health insurance because even though she had cancer and for the

moment is free of cancer, and god willing forever free of cancer, she had a pre-existing medical condition. which meant that she would be discriminated against in terms of getting health insurance. until this came along. she told us that the affordable care act represented protection from the uncertainty and fear that came from being diagnosed and being denied health insurance coverage because ever a past disease. passing this amendment -- of a past disease. passing this amendment would stop the reform and mean that 129 million americans like vernal, 125 million americans would lose coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. do you understand what that means in the lives of these people? and to our seniors the subject has been brought up over and

over again about our seniors. richard is a diabetic and his insulin alone costs nearly $1,000 a month. when they fell into the doughnut hole they were forced to choose between defaulting on the loan of their home or paying for richard's health. as claudette put it, well, we chose my husband's health. but changes made are starting -- that we made in this bill are starting to change the doughnut hole so families aren't forced to choose between paying their mortgage or paying for their medicine. passing this amendment would mean that over $2.7 million medicare beneficiaries would again fall into the doughnut hole and medicare would no longer be able to pay for the annual checkup for 44 million seniors in our country.

mr. kingston says his children are old enough and they should be able to tabling care of them selves even though they are under 26 years old. bravo for you. but that's not the way it is for many young people across this country. even if they do have a job. you say they don't have insurance because they don't have a job, it may be news to you, but there are many, many, many working americans who do not have health insurance. but they will. under the affordable care act. if this amendment were to pass immediately, if it were to become law immediately, all of those children who can now be on their parents' policy, if their parents are willing, would lose their health insurance. with a job or without a job, these young people coming out of school are idealistic, ambitious. they want to follow their passions, their pursuit.

that's what our founders told them they could do. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. these young people want a healthier life to pursue their happiness. to choose a job not based on the health benefits it may or may not provide but to choose an occupation which addresses their aspirations, not ours. theirs. and so i just want to repeat back to our colleague something i heard them say over and over again. they said we didn't read the bill. we did. but clearly you did not. and i urge you to read the bill. because if you did, you would see that the bill puts medical decisions in the hands of patients and doctors not your favorite insurance company. you would say that it brings down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. you would see that it ends the days of discrimination based on

pre-existing condition and lifetime companies on care of children and families. you would see that no longer under this bill, no longer would being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition as it is now as women are treated, are discriminated against in terms of price and access to insurance. if you would see that it offers tax credit to millions of small businesses who choose to do right by their employees and offer insurance benefits. it was for all of these americans that we acted, it's for them we stand here today to oppose this amendment. if you read the bill, you will see contrary, contrary to misrepresenting -- misrepresentations set forth by those who do the bidding of the health insurance industry in our country, you would see what the bill does. you would see that it's about innovation. it's about presenting. it's about -- prevention.

it's about care, a healthy america, not just health care in america. it's about using the technologies of the future. it's about bringing health care cloicer to people where -- closer to people where they live. to lower the cost, to improve the quality, to expand the access. you would see that it is a bill about the future. instead of the misrepresentations about this, that, and the other thing which i don't even want to repeat here, you would see that this is transformative for our country because it gives people, it gives people the liberty, again, to pursue their lives. and so i'd like to know how many of you read the bill? we read it over and over again. to each other. drilling down on different parts of it. so we know of what we speak when we come to this floor. and maybe if you knew more about it, you would -- wouldn't be so quick to say we do not want to

allow children to stay on their parents' policies. we do not want pre-existing conditions to -- we do not want to end discrimination on the basis of pre-existing condition for our children. we do not want to begin to close the doughnut hole. we do not want to have a preventive medicine without cost and co-pay for our seniors. the list goes on and on. so that's what's happening here today. this is again, yet again another example of our friends standing up for the insurance companies at the expense of the american people. standing up for the insurance company at the expense of a health and well-being of our country. it is again an example of washington d.c. holding on to the special interest status quo.

it is again this congress saying to the american people, we are here for the special interest. we are not here for the people's interest. stacey, we are not here for your two daughters. for vernal we are not here for women, and having a pre-existing condition. to claudette and richard to say to them, two bad about your mortgage. if you can't pay your mortgage, because you have to pay your medical bills, so be it. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which is another manifest case of the so be it attitude of some in congress at the expense of many in our country. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

montana. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. rehberg: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana will be postponed. .

the chair: who seeks time? mr. king: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk, number 266. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 266 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentlelady reserves a point of order. pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. amendment 266 is the amendment that has had a lot of discussion around this chamber and around this country and what it does is it recognizes the results of this c.r.s. report, mr. chairman. this report dated just last thursday, february 10, 2011. it took a long time to put all

the numbers together in an official document that identified the money that are automatically appropriated in obamacare. and digging that out there are dozens of locations that go on in perpetuity that total in this report is $105.5 billion. and here we are in this c.r.s. -- or excuse me this continuing resolution, the c.r.s. report says $105.5 billion, i've been working on that for some months, finally we came with a total. if we're not able to, if we're not able to shut off all of the funding that is automatically appropriated in the obamacare legislation, both components of it, the reconciliation package and the bill itself, then forever this money goes forward and the administration aggressively uses to implement obamacare. so at that point i would reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady. ms. delauro: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes, claiming the time in opposition. ms. delauro: -- the chair: does the gentlewoman continue to reserve your point of order? ms. delauro: yes, i do, yes. let me just very briefly, let me yield myself about 30 seconds. the chair: you're recognized for 30 seconds. ms. delauro: this amendment will add to the deficit next year, next year, $3.5 billion and over the next several years $5.6 billion. it will not create a job and once again would put the american people back in the

hands of the insurance companies without the ability to be able to get the kind of health insurance that they require to deal with any illness that may befall them. with that, let me yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas. is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker, members, and i thank my colleague from connecticut for yielding to me. let me first say that i've read the bill, i was on the subcommittee and the full committee and served on the health subcommittee for many years and i had many people ask me that. and believe me, when you spend hours and hours literally in testimony and amending the bill, you have the chance to read it. and i would hope my republican colleagues and all of us would use the same thing, our appropriators, i would hope they would read the appropriations

bill if they're accusing us on the energy and commerce committee. what this amendment would do would take away the funding that the department of labor and health and human services would be able to enforce that insurance can't drop someone for coverage when they become sick. they would take away that funding. seniors would be saving money, they couldn't enforce it, saving money for seniors for prescription drugs. young adults under 26, up to age 26, are getting back insurance for their parents. that would stop the department of labor and health and human service from enforcing that law. small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. this would stop it. defunding health care would end these benefits and putting insurance companies back in charge. the whole goal of the health care bill, whether you call it obamacare, i'm kind of concerned, i wanted it to be call the gene green care bill.

but that's what this bill is about and this amendment. it will defund the great things that's in the health care law. let's go back and talk about the things we all agree that need to be changed. but if you take away the money, we'll lose this for all our folks in our districts. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i'd be very pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. baca: thank you, mr. speaker, and i -- mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from iowa. the effort on the part of steve king is to defund obamacare. this chamber already passed a bill to repeal obamacare, which the american people have asked, this is now an effort to defund obamacare. because as we have seen from the congressional research service, the ingenious nature of the obamacare bill was to already put the funding in place so that if the majority lost the gavel, which they did, the new majority would be unable to defund this

bill. speaker pelosi said it well last year when she said, we had to pass the bill to know what's in it. we only found out recently that literally tens of billions of dollars have already been appropriated to fund obamacare. it was put in, quote, mandatory spending, spending where this chamber would not have access to be able to defund the bill. if we are unable to defund the bill now, make no mistake, mr. speaker, this chamber and the american people will do everything they can to make sure they put into place a new president, a new senate and a house that will have the requisite courage to finally defund the government takeover of health care and i yield back to the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. baldwin. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for two

minutes. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill. i fail to see how republican efforts to eliminate all funds for health reform will create jobs or help our fragile economy recover. instead defunding health reform would leave behind thousands of whom i represent in wisconsin, thousands of wisconsin families who have already begun to experience the benefits of health care reform. should the republican efforts succeed, tens of thousands of young adults in wisconsin would stand to lose their insurance coverage through their parents. once again children would be refused insurance, discriminated against, because of pre-existing conditions. and nearly 50,000 wisconsin seniors would face higher prescription drug costs. what's more, the efforts to defund the health care reform law come on top of extreme cuts

to community health care centers and family planning clinics. while i agree with my republican colleagues that we must reduce the deficit and bring the budget into balance, we must be smart about it and this amendment is not smart about it. this unwise bill jeopardizes our nation's health, our nation's recovery and our nation's future and is particularly troublesome to me this week because it falls on top of efforts by wisconsin's governor to cut health, education and public safety services and to take away the rights of public servants to provide them. mr. chairman, today i stand in solidarity with my fellow wisconsinites as i fight for a better future for all wisconsinites and all americans. i urge my colleagues to oppose republican efforts to defund the health care reform law and to oppose the underlying bill.

the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i would be pleased to yield a minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for a minute. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, thank you, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i stand in full support of the king amendment. i was at the well just a few minutes ago in support of the rehberg amendment. but what this amendment does is eliminates, stop the funding, the $100 billion worth of funding that was automatically put in this bill. to prevent, if we took over the majority, this house, mr. chairman, as we have done, try to stop us from stopping the worst bill that's ever been passed in the history of the congress. and we have to do this. this is a pledge to the american people. we can do it. we can start over, we can make this bill right, we can enact health care reform that truly does bring down the cost for

patients. so they can get access, they have more control and that we don't destroy the medical profession in the process of continuing this wrongheaded, boneheaded obamacare bill. so i want to stand strongly with my colleague from iowa in supporting this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate that. my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about listening to the american public. i've been back home in my district meeting with providers, people in the insurance industry, hospitals, nurses, and they are dealing with this plan moving forward. they're excited about the opportunities to take advantage of it. the protections that are under way in the law right now are popular with the public because they're important to the public. my friends talk about listening to the american citizens, the

associated press pointed out in a poll last month that the overwhelm magazine jort oppose the notion of trying to defund health care and in fact in that same poll 43% thought the protections should be expanded. we are in a situation now where we can make a profound difference in improving the quality of health care in this country while we reduce deficits, putting stand in the gears, arguing, trying to create confusion is not moving us forward. work with our hospitals, work with our doctors, work with our citizens, make this work for america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, how much time does each side have remaining, please? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has 1 1/4 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from connecticut has 30 seconds remaining. mr. king: in that case i would then reserve to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from

connecticut. ms. delauro: do i have the right to close, mr. chairman? the chair: yes. the gentlewoman from connecticut has the right to close in opposition to the amendment. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentlewoman from connecticut -- are you reserving? ms. delauro: yes, i'm reserving. the chair: all right. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment, amendment number 266, someone put the moniker on it, the silver bullet amendment. and as much as we have all worked here to try to find the right way to shut off all the funding, to freeze in place the implementation and enforcement of obamacare, many of us have worked in a number of different ways. this is the one that the amendment that goes back and looks at the pattern that was set, that i understood, back in 1974, when there was a c.r. before the house of representatives that shut off all funding that would go to the vietnam war for offensive or defensive operations in the air

over the land of, the seas adjacent to or the countries adjacent to it. that language covers everything and it stopped bullets on the doc from going the hands of the people themselves. the foundation is here in multiple places in the history of this congress. this is the language that shuts off the funding of obamacare until such time as h.r. 2 becomes law, that's the repeal legislation that becomes law. this is h.r. 1, it's completely appropriate that h.r. 2 and h.r. 1 are married together and that we shut off the funding for the implementation of obamacare, all of it, the entire $105.5 billion that were slipped into this report that we just got back last february 10. mr. chairman, i urge the adoption of this amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. he yields back his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i urge my

colleagues to oppose this amendment. what we need to be doing is to focus on jobs, to grow the economy, and to reduce the deficit. this amendment does none of the above. essentially what it does, it takes us back to -- into the hands of insurance companies when they had free reign to raise rates, to reject claims and deny coverage to families and businesses who would have no recourse. it protects their c.e.o. bonuses and their corporate profits. we need to be about the business of creating jobs, this amendment does nothing to do that, it increases the deficit. it should be absolutely clear to everyone here and everywhere else what this amendment does. mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on the appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21 and the rule states in pertinent part and i quote, an amendment to the

general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing laws. waives existing law and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut has stated a point of order against the amendment. is there anyone who wishes to be heard on the point of order? . the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a point of order that has been raised on my amendment that i referred to as the silver bullet amendment, i think does not consider a duty that we have here in the house of representatives and that is, we stand here and take an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. each one of us, i bring in my bible to do that, i take it very, very seriously when we take an oath to uphold the constitution. we don't take an oath to uphold a rule but we take an oath to uphold the constitution. as i look into this constitution, and read through it, article 1, section 5 reads

in pertinent part, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. because each house can determine the rule of its proceedings here in this constitution, you have in your hands the gavel, mr. chairman, and the power and the authority to determine those rules and least to make a strong recommendation to this body. i would urge that we understand that two federal courts have found this bill, obamacare, to be unconstitutional and it is immoral and unjust and irresponsible to waive any opportunity to shut off the billions of dollars that are automatically appropriated in a deceptive fashion and continue for the implementation of obamacare because we might think somehow that a rule which trumps the very constitution itself. i yield back. the chair: is there any other member who wishes to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. weiner: i agree with the gentleman.

his amendment is clearly in order. but i know this because if this were legislating on this bill that would mean that they can legislate. they control the house and the senate and president, they were unable to legislate. we are here for six weeks they were unable to legislate. it's impossible to believe he's legislating in this bill. the point of order, if i may speak to it, the point of order suggests the gentleman is legislating on an appropriation bill. i have watched those guys. they are incapable. there is no way this is legislating. i believe the point of order should be struck down. it's impossible to operate. they haven't legislated. they had eight years in the majority they didn't legislate. how could it possibly be, mr. chairman, the point of order is correct? the gentlelady from connecticut is rarely incorrect, if you think they are legislating, impossible. almost metaphysicalically impossible for the gentleman to be legislating. he doesn't know how. how could we possibly have the legislating in this bill? i think the gentleman is

absolutely correct. let us have this debate because if it is that moment, if lightning is striking, if it is chilly in hell, maybe this is the moment we have been waiting for. the republican majority will start legislating. please praise god, maybe this is the moment. i think the gentleman is correct. he is not legislating in this bill because it is impossible for them to do so because they simply don't know how. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule and has been entertained. on the point of order there is no other member who wishes to speak to the point of order? the chair finds that the amendment proposes to supersede exiting law as such it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2-c of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. who seeks recognition? mr. king: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 267.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 267, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. king of iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment number 267 is an amendment that is narrowed in its scope in anticipation of the point of order that was raised by the gentlelady from connecticut and can't help but reflect must it must have been like in this body before the invention of television. by my amendment number 267 says this, iner pertinent part, funds made available by this act, no funds made available by this act may be used to carry out the provisions of obamacare.

so what this does is, for the appropriations that go on outside of the scope of this continuing resolution, we have lost that point of order. but this amendment goes to those funds that are appropriated within it down the exact same path as the rehberg amendment, except it goes to the outside of the particular department of human services as the narrower scope of the rehberg amendment. this goes broader than just h.h.s., but it does go directly to shutting off all funds within this c.r. that would be used to enforce or implement obamacare. i made my arguments, mr. chairman, on that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition? ms. delauro: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for

one minute. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. poll after poll shows that americans oppose repealing health care. 62% of americans oppose these efforts. why? because they figured out that the nonsense coming from republicans over the last several years about this being socialized medicine or government takeover is just that, it's nonsense. what they figured out is that this is helping millions of americans all around this country. millions of americans let a little 8-year-old boy named kyle who was encouraged to walk into my office yesterday and tell me about his battle with hemophilia . had a has to put out $10,000, his family does, $10,000 a month to pay for his medication. and repeal of this legislation means bankruptcy for his family and for him a lifetime of worrying as to whether he has a job that covers his illness or whether he has the medication to stay alive. that's why 62% of americans oppose what the republicans are trying to do on this floor and

for anyone that votes for this, they have to have an opportunity to them and they have to answer to little kyle. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i would be pleased to yield a minute and a half to the doctor from louisiana, mr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana frequented for how much time, sir? mr. king: 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from iowa. mr. chairman, one thing is lost in this debate is this fact. and that is there is a difference between coverage and access to care. i have been a physician for 35 years. i can tell you that today through obamacare we have 5% coverage but we have 100% access to care. anyone who wishes can report to any emergency room in this country and receive care. they may receive a bill, but if they pay that bill or not, they

can still return for care. now, let's move to canada anti-u.k. where they have -- and the u.k. where they have supposedly 100% of coverage. they oftentimes wait a year, maybe two years for a c.t. scan or m.r.i. scan. and then once they get the results back, they may wait another year to get surgery. it's not unusual to be told, hey, we could have helped you had we made the diagnosis in time. it's perfectly acceptable in these countries to have a death rate from lack of treatment. look at the death rates from cancer, prostate, breast cancer. in our country versus others. a horrific difference. why? because we diagnose it much earlier, we treat it much more aggressively. but if we go forward with this obamacare, then what we will have is budgets coming up against the decision on what type of care our citizens can receive. we'll be taking it out of

insurance companies, but, yes, we'll also be putting it into the hands of the government w that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. owens. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. owens: thank you, mr. speaker, i come before you today after spending 25 years in the health care industry representing my local hospitals. i can tell you that this bill was supported by them because it creates care in our communities and it creates jobs in our communities. if we are going to focus on how to improve care and reduce costs, the bill is replete with opportunity. we can support accountable care organizations, we can support medical home pilots. we can support community health centers, we can support electronic medical records, we can support telemedicine. and support the for medicare and

medicaid innovation. that's how we'll improve care, reduce costs, and deliver benefit to our constituents. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, be pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: i thank the chair. earlier we heard the former speaker come to the floor just moments ago and said she has now read the bill. of course we heard her famously say before that, we had to pass the legislation in order for her to find out what was in the bill. i can tell you someone who has read the bill and that is -- i overwhelm have a minute. thank you. we can tell you who has read the bill and that is the courts of this greatp country. the most recent federal court said they have read it and they found the bill is unconstitutional.

for this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of citizenship, this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of freedom, this is the first time in the history of the country that the price of being an american is that you have to buy a particular product that some unknown, faceless bureaucrat in washington ordains you have to buy. the strong hand of the big brother is reaching out and telling us you have to do this and you have to do that as the price of freedom and price of liberty. yes, to answer your question, yes, we will legislate, yes, we will address being had health care, yes, we will address the american people's interest in this area. i commend the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: the courts are split two, two. with that let me yield a minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the chair: the gentleman from

north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to king amendment number 267. it has been said that we are the sum total of our experiences, mr. chairman, and that is certainly true. my experience consists of growing up in a low-income minority community whose history dates back more than 150 years to slavery. i represent that district, the first district of north carolina, the fourth poorest district in the country. my constituents, mr. chairman, overwhelmingly support the affordable care act. why? my constituents know that they -- their insurance costs are soaring. exceeding more than 18% per year in increased costs. for those constituents who don't have insurance, they know that they will be able to qualify for medicaid if their income is less than 133% of the federal poverty line. my rural hospitals, mr. chairman, know that when patients walk into their emergency rooms the hospitals

will be paid for their care and they will not continue to face bankruptcy. mr. chairman, this is shall -- this assault on the affordable care act is unnecessary. i ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: may i inquire to the amount of time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from connecticut has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. king: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: republicans seem to be pretending that emergency room care is free. every insured american is paying an extra $1,100 this year, for those who are uninsured. we want to begin to address that problem.

get them in earlier. get them treatment. less expensive. don't pass the costs on to other americans. personal responsibility. we outlawed the worst abuses of the insurance industry, canceling your policy when you get sick, even though you have been paying the premium. preventing people from getting health care because of a pre-existing condition. i heard from a dad whose young son with birth defects is finally getting covered for those issues because of this law. and then the students i met at lang community college, 21, 22, 23 years old, getting an education, wanting to get in the work force, they thanked me for their health insurance. they need that health insurance. the republicans said they were going to repeal and replace. it would have been pretty darn silent on the replace side. maybe because it upsets their patrons in the insurance industry. who are soy generous at campaign time. . the chair: the gentleman's time

has ex-pired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of his time. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i take issue with the gentleman that declared this to be nonsense. this is not nonsense. this is very, very serious business. this is the largest taking of american liberty in the history of this country. the shenanigans that went on to put this bill in place. you could not have sent this bill out on the floor of the 111th congress and had it pass if it were packed up in one big stack. we listened to dr. burgess about all the things that took place to represent this bill in one place oar another, including the promise of an executive order designed to trump the very congress itself. here we are with the first opportunity to put the brakes on obamacare, yes we replaced the appeal, h r. 2. this is r.r. 1, it's here

because it's more important to the speaker than h reform 2. that means we must shut off this support of opaw macare. this money that goes on in perpetuity, sending the malignant tumor down, it's metastasizing as we speak this amendment is the amendment that shuts off all the funding within the c.r. it must be passed by this congress to keep faith with the american people. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the yom from connecticut. ms. delauro: let me inquire with the chair, is it one and a quarter that remains? the chair: you have one and a quarter minute. ms. delauro: i yield the plns mauve time to the gentleman y washington state. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a quarter. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, we've been here now the better

part of two months and we've seen a political theater go on and on and on. each day we bring out something that seems like it might have some usefulness, but it turns out it's just more political theater. we read the constitution in here. that took us a day. then we spent nine hours arguing about a bill that we knew wasn't going anywhere. then we brought up the health care bill. then we keep doing this. meanwhile, the american people are saying there's no threat. i wouldn't say dr. fist was a good friend of mine but he was the majority leader in the senate, a republican, a doctor who said don't repeal this law, fix it. there have been no hearings in the two months about how you would fix the bill, yet the

american people, the problems that my colleagues come out here talking about, one after another, are multiplied by the millions in this cupry, they know there's a problem, they don't want to repeal it. the numbers for repeal have been dropping as the people have seen more and more provisions of this law come into effect. they want you to fix it, not political theater. it doesn't help them in the emergency room or the doctor's office. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman's time has ex-pired. the time has expired. >> i move too to the strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: thank you. i'd like to yield time to mr. an druids of new jersey. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: if i could get the attention of the gentleman, the author of the amendment, mr. chairman, i want to yield to him for an answer to a

question. the gentleman, my friend from iowa. the chair: technically, the gentlewoman from connecticut has to ask. mr. andrews: i ask her at the appropriate time to yield for an answer. let's say we have a person on medicare who has $100 a week drug costs and they hit the doughnut hole in august of the year. the way the law works right now they will get help to continue to pay for their prescription drugs in the form of either a rebate in the future or cash -- a cash rebate in the past or a discount in the future. i wonder if the gentleman could explain to us, what will happen to that recipient when they hit the doughnut hole if his amendment becomes law. i ask the gentlelady to yield to him for the -- for an answer. ms. delauro: i yield to the gentleman. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and i thank the gentleman for the question. many people in the lowest

income are not affected by the doughnut hole. i also recall -- mr. -- ms. delauro: reclaiming my time. i think we're going to try to answer the gentleman's question. mr. andrews: the question was, what about someone in the doughnut hole, what happens under your amendment? i ask the gentlelady to yield. ms. delauro: i yield to the gentleman. mr. king: i think it's a bit unclear. we don't know how the secretary of health and human services. will respond. ms. delauro: reclaiming my time. mr. an truse: it's not unclear at all. what would happen under the gentleman's amendment is the prescription drug price of the senior would go up dramatically and they'd have to pay the spire cost of that prescription until they hit the, i think, the $5,100 limit. the effect of this, this is substantive legislation. it will raise prescription drug costs for america's neediest seniors.

i thank the gentlelady for the time. ms. delauro: i would like to yield time to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: i thank the yealt from connecticut and mr. speaker, when you take a look at what is happening here, the effort to repeal, to kill, to stop the affordable health care act is an assault on the american public. it's an assault on the american public. and it would turn back to the insurance industry their opportunity to deny benefits, to deny coverage. it's hard to understand how in this period of time when we should be talking about building jobs that our colleagues would put before us legislation that would in fact destroy over 800,000 jobs and destroy the opportunity for millions upon millions of americans to have health care that they could afford and put small -- and for small

businesses to be able to provide health care to their employees and receive a reduction in the cost of that health care. it is hard to understand why they would be doing this when we need jobs, when we need health care, and when you look across the broad impact of h.r. 1, it is an assault on the working men and women of the poor in this country. when you take a look at the tax proposals put forward by the republicans, it is to benefit the high and the mighty and thewelly. to the detriment of the working men and women, the poor of this country. this is flat out class warfare against the working men and women of this country. it's plain and simple. remove health care. you remove their ability to get health care. you remove their ability to be healthy and work. you remove the clinics, you remove their opportunity to get health care. you cut back on medicare and medicaid, you remove their ability to have health care. it is an assault on the working

men and women, the elderly and the poor in this nation. that's what it adds up to. i yield back my time. ms. delauro: how much time remain os they have five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady has 50 seconds remaining. ms. delauro: i would be happy to yield. mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: you may have the last 50 seconds. mr. dicks: i was in almost all the meetings in our caws can. this bill was read provision by provision, sentence by sentence and the -- the clerk, the staffers who wrote these provisions under the direction of our chairman at that time. this was carefully considered. any idea from the gentleman

from new jersey that it wasn't is just an outrageous statement on his part and he ought to be ashamed of himself. the chair: the gentlelady has 15 seconds. ms. delauro: i would just say that once again, what we're doing here, this amendment does mirror the prior amendment where we had a discussion. we keep saying it over and over again, your inability to come here as you promised to create jobs for the american people, to lower the deficit for them, and to turn the economy around has failed in this effort. the chair: all time having expired, the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. delauro: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from yie rise? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 268, offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: the gentleman from iowa, mr. king and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognized the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i yield myself 30 seconds. >> i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves a point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: the amendment number 268 goes to the end of the bill and says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to pay the vail of any officer of employee of any government agency with respect to carrying out the provisions of obamacare. it is that simple. it's one way to slow down the implementation an enforcement of opaw macare until such time

as we see that day that the full repeal is signed by hopefully the next president of the united states unless the one we have today has a reconsideration. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who claims time in opposition. ms. delauro: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. -- from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment and the underlying bill goes in precisely the wrong direction. we should be standing here talking about trentening the historic reform that we passed last year. we should not be tearing it apart.

because we all know that repeal will leave millions out in the cold. it will strip them of access to affordable health care and it will call -- cause small businesses the incentives and the tax breaks that they would get. it all goes in the wrong direction. the majority claims to believe in cutting government spending above all else. but the c.b.o. has concluded that their bill over a 10-year period would add up to 2021 would add $230 billion to the national debt. now, if you're really serious about reducing our debt -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. woolsey p.c. have robust public office, that would save $68 billion. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman

from georgia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. chairman kingston: we keep hearing from the democrats, we're here and we're not doing a jobs bill. why are we doing this now? it's because you gays did not pass a budget. we are on fy-2011 because you did not take care of your business. we are trying to finish up what you guys should have done by october 1 of last year. this does create jobs because small businesses do not want government-mandated health care. and the folks back home don't want bureaucrats coming in between the doctor-patient relationship which is what obamacare does. we know the nanny state wants full control from cadele -- cradle to grave but folks back home don't want it. that's what november was about. we're trying to finish up the unfinished business of the pelosi house from last year so we can move forward on fy-2012 for the coming year and we'll continue to have this debate.

we are trying to protect the doctor-patient relationship, not create a doctor-bureaucrat-patient relationship which obamacare does. thank you and i yealed back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neal: i thank the gentlelady. when you consider how rhetoric doesn't square up with reality in this institution, the gentleman from iowa said this is the greatest threat to personal liberty in history. we've got young people here today and i guess he thinks that plessy vs. ferguson and dred scott and lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus didn't represent a threat to personal liberty. president bush said the best way to get health care for people outside the mainstream was simple. go to an emergency room. . that is not health care. that treats the issue in front

of the individual. it denies preventive care. it doesn't offer assistance to women in need of additional health care. this proposal that we passed was modest and it was market driven. it kept the private sector alive and it put in place basic protections for the american consumer. i wish that we could have a separate vote on the individual proposals that we included in that bill. and i guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about death panels. we would be talking about the idea of extending health care benefits to all members of the american family, including the 51 million who find themselves outside of the mainstream. just think of it today. this is more of a threat to liberty than plessy vs. ferguson and dred scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i would be pleased to yield one minute to the judge and congressman from east texas, mr. louie gohmert. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one

minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we heard the minority leader pelosi saying earlier that we were here as republicans siding with the insurance companies. revisionist history is great but if you go back and look at who was supporting the obamacare efforts, you had the insurance companies lined up all out there supportive. you had the big pharmaceutical companies all out there supportive. you saw the american hospital association out there supportive. you saw the a.m.a. out there supportive. you saw aarp, they were seen out there encouraging all the obamacare stuff. naturally they are going -- they stand to gain with united health more than anybody, they are the biggest sellers of medigap insurance. if you really want to look at history, who was it that was not supportive? folks, we heard from them in

november. it was the american people. that's why we are here. we are with small business, they'll create the jobs. we are with the american people. that's why we are doing this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from florida. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. if the gentlelady will suspend for one moment. the chair would note that the point of order by the gentleman from new york continues to be reserved throughout. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wilson: good afternoon, madam chair. somewhere in america today a family is losing their home because they can't afford the health care premiums for a diabetic dad and hypertensive mom. somewhere in america tonight a child will die because they have been denied health care because of a pre-existing condition. somewhere in america tomorrow a family will go bankrupt because

they took care of a cancer stricken family member. black, white, hispanic, urban, rural, republican, democrat, independent, tea party, it doesn't matter. at some time in our life we will all get sick. we need health care, but you know what? we have members of congress are very fortunate. we all get health care. we get the very best. what about jennifer and lisa and james and grandma and grandpa and the johnsons and baby joshua? we represent them, too. they get what they deserve -- they deserve what we get. my constituents sent me to washington to preserve the affordable health care legislation. they are proud of the product that the 11th congress and nancy pelosi and president obama produced. long live affordable health care legislation. on behalf of the people of this nation who depend on our leadership, i call upon you to defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: madam chair, i would be pleased to yield two minutes

to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mrs. bachmann: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the gentleman from iowa for offering this important amendment. the liberal talking point and the debate thus far has gone something like this, we can't defund obamacare today because we have to focus on job creation. now, that's very interesting coming from the liberals in this chamber who spent literally trillions of dollars out of the public treasury only to see two million jobs lost in the private sector because of their failed policies on job creation. obamacare will likely create the largest government bureaucracy in the history of our country. filled with even more government jobs than any other agency. there's one thing that obamacare will likely do very, very well and it's this. it will create the largest bureaucracy of government workers in the history of the

nation. it isn't that we will necessarily get more doctors. it isn't that obamacare will necessarily give us more nurses or truly more health care. what we will get from obamacare, according to the congressional budget office, is increased costs in health care with a huge bureaucracy all designed for the purpose likely of saying no to people when they need to have access to health care. what a bargain, madam speaker. pay more, get less. that's the reason why i believe the rasmussen poll came out last week and said this 58% of the american people are begging this congress to repeal obamacare. repeal we will and defund we must. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: may i inquire as to the balance of the time? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has one minute remaining.

the gentlelady from connecticut has two minutes. mr. king: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much to my dear friend. this is a siege on the lives of innocent americans. it is a siege by undocumented claims of unconstitutionality, when justice scalia said the relevant inquiry is simply within the means are chosen, reasonably adapted to the attainment of legitimate end under the commerce clause, it is. this bill is constitutional. what this gentleman wants to do is to literally shut down community health clinics who are now under the affordable care act. he wants to make sure that children are not getting immunized. he wants to make sure h.i.v.

patients are not getting their medicine. he wants to make sure seniors who can come to these clinics are not able to access them, families are getting no coverage. this is what the end result of this very, very dangerous amendment, a-- addition we have to respond to someone who got up and said this is the worst bill that's ever been passed. what about the slave laws? what about the fugitive slave laws. how dare anyone suggest this is the worst bill when we give opportunity to all americans. this amendment should be denied and they should listen to senator frist who said this bill is a good bill. there are republicans who believe we should provide health care for america. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: madam chair, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, madam chair. i recall back at the beginning of the obama administration when president obama said that we are in an economic calamity, economic mess and we couldn't

fix our economic problems unless we first fixed health care. and so his solution for spending too much money was to spend a lot more money, $2.6 trillion on health care. so if we couldn't first fix the economy unless we first fix health care, let me take that philosophy and turn it this way. we can't fix health care unless we first repeal obamacare. that's where this country is today. we can't put the replacement in place, we can't put the fixes in place until we pull this thing out by the roots. the only way we can do it here today is to shut off the funding. the repeal is over there in the senate. the house voted it in a strong way to repeal obamacare. h.r. 1 is the unfunding obamacare. it's the vehicle to do it. this amendment is one of the vehicles that contributes to that cause. i again thank denny rehberg and the people that did this work and those people that worked on this cause. i urge adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from account k ms. delauro: -- the gentlelady

from connecticut. ms. delauro: the american people want us to focus our time and attention on creating jobs. they want us to turn the economy around. they want us to reduce the deficit. the total of the two bills that -- two amendments that have come before this body would increase the deficit. increase it. the first one by $5.5 billion over the next several years. and this one at about $5.3 billion over the next five years. that's not what you told them you were going to do. you told them you were going to create jobs. and roll back the deficit. what you are doing here is putting the american people in the hands of the insurance companies again. to make their decisions about health care. and you will not -- we have

health care in this body. millions in this nation do not. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill which doesn't create jobs, doesn't turn the economy around, and add to the deficit. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. does the gentleman from new york continue to insist on his point of order? mr. weanor: yes i do. -- mr. weiner: yes, i do. i make a point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not in order because it results in a net reduction of revenues to the treasury in violation of the rules of the house, in violation of the rules stimulated in this bill. and i explain in the following way as the gentleman surely knows if his amendment is successful, the checks that are going to small businesses today to the tax breaks they are getting, to provide health care to their workers, and the fact that there are no burdens on those small businesses, means that they are going to have less money to spend, therefore less people they'll be able to hire,

reduction in the amount of jobs, reduction in the amount of revenue coming into the government, and increased burden on government services. in fact, the gentleman would say that anyone that would be writing the checks to give back to citizens, they can't do it. anyone taking that check, bringing it to them, can't do it. anyone cashing that check would be in violation of the law. this amendment says that anyone getting a tax break under this bill would have to give it back. that provides net reduction in the amount of economic activity and job creation in this country and therefore this amendment is out of order. the chair: is the gentleman making a 3-j-3 point of order? mr. weiner: i withdraw my point of order. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the ayes have -- ayes have it. the aye vs. it and the amendment is agreed to. miss dehearto: recorded --

ms. delauro: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 83, printed in the congressional record, offered by mrs. emerson of missouri. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17,

2011, the gentlelady from missouri, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. emerson: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself two minutes. madam chair, this amendment will prevent the appropriation of any funds in this act to implement or enforce the provisions within the health spending law that require the i.r.s. to verify that individuals have health care coverage and impose penalties on those who don't comply. the fate of this mandate in the course is uncertain, but we know that it already has been ruled upon by the american people. they don't want and shouldn't suffer a mandate from government engaged in specific economic activity. my own state of missouri passed a ballot initiative last august by a vote of 71% not to enforce the individual mandate. this is the bright light example of what's wrong with the health

care law. it compels americans to give up their freedom, surrender their choices, and part with their hard-earned money to support a system of health care designed by and run by the federal government through a maze of four committees and bureaucrats. no americans should be forced to buy or purchase health insurance they neither want nor can afford and the federal government has based the purchase of a good or service as a condition of being a law-abiding citizen. the american people need some form of protection that the i.r.s. will not begin to aggressively implement the individual mandate and this measure assures that it won't be implemented prior to the end of fiscal year 2011. . individuals of their own volition deserve the chance to speak on this matter before the courts as extraordinary new burdens to the fiscal responsibility of state governments forces small businesses to fire employees they value and compels

individuals to spend money they'd rather save. for all these disconcerting reasons, i urge you to support this crucial amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to to the claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: i think before we go further on this subject, we have to understand what is happening here. the majority party would like to do away with the health care reform law. and the way to do that is exactly that way. to try to do away with the law. but they don't have the votes in both houses to do that. what they're trying to do is not fund provisions that have to go into place so tonight, at this moment, what mrs. emerson is trying to do is say no funds can be used to impose this mandate. that is going to get -- this

particular part will get played out in the courts. the courts will have to decide what why it's ok to mandate that you have to have car insurance but not this particular issue and there are going on a lot of -- going to be a lot of other issues. but the issue here is they would like to legislate on this bill the end of health care and that's just not going to happen. lastly, what this amendment does is speak to the larger issue. which is that in this country now we have a law that provides access to quality health care to all residents regardless of who they are, where they live or their income. the only people who are upset about this bill, about this law, and have done a good job of telling the american people that this is the end of the world are the insurance companies who now have to step up to the plate and follow the law. so we know what this is about. we know what you're trying to

accomplish. but it's not going to work. it's not going to work. -- it's not going to work this way and it's not going to work in rescinding the law. lastly, lastly you know every so often i give advice to the republican party because i like you. if you keep calling it obamacare, you know what's going to happen? it's going to make it through the courts and 20 years from now, you're going to have social security, medicare, and obamacare and you will have cemented his legacy forever. we thank you for that and i'm sure the president thanks you and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. emerson: does the gentleman have other speakers? mr. serrano: yes, i do. mrs. emerson: i do as well, but they are not here right now so i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york. ms. se -- mr. serrano: i'd like to yield a minute to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for one minute. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment, the reason i do, as a member of the ways and means committee, we had commissioner schumer before us talking about the law and the affordable care act. he said all the additional funding they will receive will be used for outreach efforts, to inform small businesses about the tax cuts they are eligible for. 16,000 companies in my district alone are getting money under the act. mr. kind: if you look at the 50 million uninsured in this country, the bulk are working americans, typically in small businesses or family farms who have a hard time providing health care coverage. the i.r.s. will be doing outreach to them to let them know the benefits they'll receive along with other individuals throughout the country to make sure they receive quality, affordable

health care coverage. that in essence will be the i.r.s.'s role. i think for that reason we should vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. emerson: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remain, the gentlelady from missouri has three minutes remaining. mr. serrano: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to point out, again, the gentlewoman's amendment is just like the others we've heard before. it is going to completely eliminate implementation of the health care reform. because the bottom line is that if this amendment were to pass, then all of the positive things that have already gone into place in terms of discrimination or eliminating discrimination against

pre-existing conditions or allowing the other discriminatory practices like lifetime or annual caps or the requirement that young people up to the age of 26 be able to get insurance coverage on their policy, all these things essentially depend on the mandate pause without the mandate, what happens is -- because without the mandate what happens is insurance companies go back to discriminatory practices -- practices. this is an effort to get rid of the health care reform. whether it's defunding it or rescinding it or whatever else we see. we know that without the man.net it's going to be impossible to carry out the coverage and implementation of these important provisions that eliminate discrimination. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. emerson: at this time, madam chair, i yield one minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the chair: one minute and 30

seconds to the gentleman from texas. the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the issue is, is this constitutional? it's not whether it's a great idea, whether the mandate is going to save us all, the issue is whether it's constitutional. i do not believe the constitution gives the federal government the authority to force an american to buy anything, whether it's health care insurance, whether it's a car or a box of doughnuts. if we allow the congress to go in and force americans to buy a product or be punished by paying a fee which is a fine, and if you don't pay the fine you could be prosecuted under the i.r.s. code and go to prison, then where does it stop? where does congress stop its nonsense of forcing americans to buy products all in the name of saving us all. this portion is unconstitutional. we should not force americans to pay for this and we should defund the individual mandate for the simple reason that it's unconstitutional.

let's talk about that issue and this discussion and debate on the house floor. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognizeed for 30 seconds. mr. gare mengke: madam chair, the issue before us is whether the i.r.s. should be able to enforce the laws. in this case, the health care laws. during the first decade of the 2000 period, there was enormous medicare fraud going on in the health care bill. additional agents were added to the i.r.s. and other agencies to enforce the medicare laws against fraud. this provision would defund that and make it impossible to enforce the laws and prevent medicare fraud. a very bad idea. i urge a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. emerson: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

new york. mr. serrano: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to ask a question of the chair. who has the right to close on this amendment? the chair: the gentleman from new york has the right to close. mrs. emerson: madam chair, parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentlelady will state. ms. ep em-- mrs. emerson: is it not correct that i would have the right to close. no? the chair: a manager in opposition of controlled debate will close. mrs. emerson: thank you, madam chair, i continue trow serve. the chair: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i continue to reserve. mrs. emerson: madam chair, let me yield myself 30 seconds very quickly. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. emerson: number one. my colleague tries to make a comparison between car

insurance and health insurance. first of all, auto insurance, if you will, deals with liability and the harm you may do to others. health insurance has to do with the liability to yourself. it's totally different. i don't believe that any state actually requires comprehensive insurance. bottom line is, we do not want the i.r.s. implementing, now, regulations that may be overturned perhaps in the near future in the courts. i continue to -- i reserve the balance of. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i reserve only if she still has more speakers. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady has one minute and a halftime remaining. mrs. emerson: ok, i will in fact yield myself 30 more seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. emerson: at the end of the day, we do not know what the

courts are going to say about the constitutionality of an individual mandate. as such, it seems irresponsible for the internal revenue service, when it has so many demands on its time, to end -- and on its employees to implement something that we don't know whether or not it's actually going to become the law of the land system of with that, i believe very strongly that the i.r.s. should not be spending those mups in fy-2011 and we will deal with 2012 at the time when it comes up. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: -- mr. dicks: will the gentlelady yield back so we can move ahead. mrs. emerson: i yield back. the chair: does the gentlelady yields back? -- yield back? mr. serrano: i was surprised

and interested to hear that the republican party is going to move next on undoing a mandate on car insurance throughout this country. another insurance. we know what this is. this is a way to try to kill the law of the land. this should not be done. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the yealt from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to the chair: -- mr. serrano: i wasn't quick enough, i heard the noes very late loudly. i call for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman calls for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from missouri will be postponed. does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition?

the gentleman from oregon. the chair: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dedsig nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 552, printed in the con fregsal record, offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to the order of the house february 17, 2011, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: thank you, madam speaker. colleagues, i've enjoyed seeing this open process in this body for the first time in a long time as far as it goes. however, a real open process would allow for real alternatives representing meaningful compromises in scope as well as in the particulars. america needs and deserves a real bipartisan solution that is more than political theater and actually has a chance at being a viable compromise with

our senate and president. i took two messages from the election last november. america wants jobs and they want to sew their nation'ses any call -- fiscal health restored. to achieve these dual objectives, we need a careful balance between ensuresing this fragile recover -- ensuring this fragile recovery and beginning the march to fiscal strength. experts agree that $61 billion in reductions to the 2010 budget level, which we are currently debating, representing a hit to our domestic spending on education, health care, public safety and economic development would be a crushing, crushing burden on job creation and economic recovery. contrary to the lofty rhetoric surrounding the role, the c.r.'s role and correcting budget deficits and national debt, this deals with less than 15% of our budget. i'm afraid this is merely a political exercise.

america is begging for more. from its duly elected representatives. the proposed c.r. does not even get to the mythical $100 billion in reductions that were talked about during the political campaign. this proposal was not even considered by the republican leadership as real. they opted for a more reasonable reduction target before being hijacked by politics. where are the opening committee hearings? where's the testimony from individuals, businesses, agencies? we are operating with virtually now deliberation at all an often times a member has mere minutes to evaluate the amendments. . members have been working day and night for a reasonable compromise. we need a c.r. to get us through these tough times and sets the sage for a rereform. my alternative sets for a 4% reduction of domestic spending for the remabeder of 2011. the only exception is the census

bureau. it strikes more appropriate reductions in military spending at the same time while protecting our warriors in the field. as to the secretary of defense has stated, we need to eliminate costly weapons systems way over budget, and achieve much needed deficiencies in the agency. rather than the 2% reduction, increase, rather, we talk about a 1% increase. this proposal which i hope is taken as a beginning for a bipartisan compromise on the continuing resolution, makes real cuts of about $20 billion in our current level of spending. enough to be meaningful with seven months remaining in our calendar year, fiscal year, but not enough to undermine the recovery. it's simple. it's serious. and it's real. i urge its adoption. with that i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from kentucky continue to reserve his point of order? mr. rogers: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations

bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. which states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment attempts to create a legislative formula for spending. i ask for a ruling. the chair: does any member wish to be recognized to speak to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds this amendment seeks to establish a legislative formula for funding. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 89. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 89, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. kind of wisconsin.

the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: thank you, madam chair. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam chair, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. it would save the american tips $150 million a year by ending a new american taxpayer subsidy that is going to brazilian cottoning a bring business. if it sounds crazy, it is. how did we get to this point? brazil had a successful w.t.o. challenge against our own cotton subsidy program under our own farm bill. they prevailed. you would think the logical, reasonable responsible for would be to reform our program. that's not what happened. instead a new program has been created to the tune of $150 million to buy off brazil cotton

abring business so they don't provide economic sanctions against our country. it speaks to the need for us to get into serious farm bill reform, especially under title 1 commodity subsidy programs. we need to eliminate this and then get into the tough lifting of comprehensive farm bill reform. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i rise in opposition to the kind amendment and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: thank you, madam chairman. in 2004, the w.t.o., the world trade organization, found the united states guilty of illegal subsidies to american cotton farmers. it's been a long process, but brazil is a very important ally of ours. we get along fine. they are important to us strategicically in our own hemisphere so we want to get along with brazil. we have worked out this settlement which kept brazil from putting tariffs on us.

that saved us money. if we did not agree to this, which mr. kind has pointed out, $147 million, we would have to pay $ 20 million. -- $829 million. this is less. it only is in effect until the farm bill is passed. and the 2012 farm bill, we'll deal with that. with that i jackson lee a minute and a half to the chairman of the -- with that i yield a minute and a half to the chairman, mr. lucas. mr. lucas: this transfer of funds was established as part of an agreement negotiated between the u.s. and brazilian governments. as a result of this agreement, negotiated by the ustr and usda, brazil agreed to suspend retaliation against u.s. exports. if this amendment passes and the funds are not transferred in accordance with the agreement, the u.s. will be in violation of the agreement. brazil would then have the right to immediately impose punitive

tariffs on u.s. exports. what mr. kind's amendment does is invite a trade war. the u.s.-brazil agreement is in place only until the 2012 farm bill is completed. this provides an opportunity for the u.s. to determine what adjustments to current law are necessary as a part of the next farm bill to bring the u.s. cotton program into compliance with w.t.o. ruling. this amendment should not be on this bill. it is a policy change. please join me in defeating this amendment. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: i respect my colleague's position. the answer is not to create a new $150 million american subsidy program going to brazil. the answer is to reform our programs now in the united states. with that i yield a minute to my good friend from massachusetts, mr. frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: madam chair, i think if we were to have a contest on the youcut for the single

stupidest thing the federal government could do, it would be to take $120 million more of american tax dollars and send it to subsidized brazilian cotton farmers so we can subsidize american cotton farmers. that's what we are talking about. i find it ironic, my friends or great believers in the free market think there is an exception for agriculture. whether you do or don't, sending money to brazilian cotton farmers at a time when we are making fundamental cuts here is problematic. it also illustrates my problem with the structure of this bill. i was hard molested to find -- hard-pressed to find offsets so we could find consumer protection. where could we have gotten the money? from brazil. instead of accepteding it to the cotton farmers, we could have used it for our own law enforcement. but the bill is structured to protect this. we cannot waste it. let's be clear. to protect our right to continue to subsidize american cotton farmers, we are going to

subsidize brazilian cotton farmers. lunacy. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: at this time i'd like to yield a minute to my friend from arizona, mr. flake. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i hope that nobody in this chamber or watching here misses the irony of this. that we are spending money to subsidize brazilian agriculture so that we can continue to subsidize agriculture here. that's just incredible when you think about it. and what this amendment will do is to force us back to the table. it won't spark a trade war. it will simply say, all right, stop subsidizing your own agriculture in a way that violates your trade agreements. that's what we want to do is force the issue where we can actually get out of these subsidy programs. we cannot continue to send money to brazil so that we can continue to subsidize agriculture here.

it just makes no sense at all. this is a grite amendment -- great amendment. i hope my colleagues will support it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has three minutes remaying. the gentleman from wisconsin has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i yield myself 10 seconds. i just want to point out that i understand and hear what the folks are saying, but we are in a situation where we have an existing farm bill. if we do not do this, it's going to cost american taxpayers $682 million. that was a w.t.o. agreement w that i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the ag subcommittee on appropriations, mr. farr, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you very much, madam chair. i think that this is a problem. i think mr. kind has a way of looking at trying to remove the money, but it's not going to make the problem go away.

i agree that this is a thing that needs to be addressed because there's going to be retal torrey implication it is this money's just pulled, and those implications are unknown to an awful lot of other agriculture who may even support this amendment. it's an idea that we need to address. this is not the place to address it. i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: thank you, again the answer is not to invite a trade war. the answer is to fix a problem here in america by reforming the long overdue cotton subsidy program. with that i yield a minute to my friend from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: we've got everything but murder going on here. we are being blackmailed by the government of brazil and so we are giving precious u.s. taxpayer dollars, $147 million, to brazil for their cotton farmers. i got small farmers going broke.

come on, then we hear from the gentleman from georgia, that's what the law says. you just repealed health care. you can change the farm bill. we can do away with these object seen subsidies. $3.4 billion built from u.s. -- bilked from u.s. taxpayers going to subsidize cotton farmers who use subsidized water on top of that whose total crop value was $4 billion. $3.4 billion is our taxpayer subsidy. this is in -- indefensible. take steps now and next week you can repeal the farm bill and replace that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: we are going to re-authorize the farm bill next year which is what this is all about. i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. conaway: this agreement was

arranged by the obama administration and the country of brazil. this will insight a retal torrey trade war against the united states intellectual property. it won't have anything to do with tariffs on u.s. agriculture but it will hurt other segments of our economy. the 2008 farm bill was a contract with american farmers. they have put business processes in place based on that contract. we will renew, or renegotiate that contract in 2012. it makes no sense to unwind this on a piecemeal basis right now. this is a smokescreen by the other side who wants to go after the farm bill. mr. speaker, they have gone after it time and time again. but the contract with american farmers which allows americans to enjoy the cheapest, most affordable, most abundian and safest food and fiber supply in the world is on the backs of this farm bill. reopening it now on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis is wrong. a vote for this is a vote to institute a trade war with brazil no matter what the rhetoric is on the other side. oppose this amendment, i yield

back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: may i inquire the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin has 30 seconds remaying the gentleman from georgia has one minute. mr. kind: the gentleman has the right to close, is that correct? i think he's opposing. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has the right to close. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: what's really inic in this base -- ironic in this debate cotton prices are at an all-time high. it shows the resistance in this institution to refarm these programs. they claim they are going to do it in the next farm. but there is no assurance. it could be three years from now. that could be an additional half a billion dollars to the american taxpayer with these subsidies flowing to brazil. the answer is to do it now rather than waiting next year or three years from now or maybe never at all. i have been around long enough to know the powerful special interest that resist farm reform. do it and save taxpayer dollars

at the same time. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i yield the remaining balance of the time, the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the trade subcommittee who will explain why this saves $682 million and complies with w.t.o. law. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> the united states should live up to the w.t.o. obligations, particularly with respect to other countries do the same. paying brazil by $12 million a month rather than complying with the w.t.o. decision regarding cotton subsidies isn't the best way to resolve this dispute. i acknowledge that. mr. brady: this set manyment is necessary to prevent bra sill from imposing almost $1 billion in retaliation against american goods and services as it's entitled to do. this retaliation could take many dangerous and costly forms, including high tariffs, on our american sales abroad and allowing brazil to no longer protect american intellectual property rights. such retaliation will be devastating.

it would cost u.s. jobs. and harm thousands of innocent workers who have nothing to do with this case. as a result i must oppose this amendment. urge its defeat. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. so many as are in favor say aye. opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have t the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: with that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. kind: i have an amendment at the desk, number 88. the chair: clerk will designated. the clerk: amendment number 8 , printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. kind of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011rk the jatcht wisconsin, mr. kind, and a member opposed will

each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: thank you, madam chair. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam chair, my amendment is pretty straightforward and sism. it would eliminate two weapons programs that the defense department, secretary of defense, joint chiefs of staff, the bipartisan fiscal commissions say are not necessary. they are not needed. they don't go to improve military readiness. and they are redundant. it's the expeditiousry fighting vehicle as well as the surface launched medium range air to air missile system, the slam ram for short. i'm not going to get into the details as to why these weapons programs should be defunded. those serving on the committee have heard the arguments for years. what i want to make a larger point here today. if we are going to be serious about true deficit reduction, the defense aspect of the federal budget also has to be on the table. and what better place to start

than by listening to our own military leaders who continually tell this congress, stop appropriating money for what -- weapons systems we don't want. they don't enhance military readiness. they are not going to support our troops in the field. these two programs fit that bill. we have a previous amendment, ms. woolsey, in regards to the e.f.v. program. she laid out the reasons behind that. i don't have to get into. the fact is the defense spending is the second largest spending category in the entire federal budget after health care costs. if that is taken off the table, which i hear too often from too many of my colleagues, it's going to make restoring the fiscal health of our nation that much more difficult. with just the elimination of the expeditionary fighting vehicle, secretary gates estimates can save the american taxpayer over $12 billion. and then for the slam ram

program, general perfect really estimated that would save an additional $1 billion. when the budget's going to be tight and there is going to be an increasing squeeze on our military, and military readiness, what bert place to start than these weapons programs that the military is not even asking for and instructing congress stop the insanity? the last session of congress, the democratic the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time moved forward on another important area of defense reform, that's the weapons procurement program. a recent general accounting office report indicates that current weapons programs in the pipeline today are over $300 billion over budget. so this blag check that the defense contractors expect from the american taxpayer has got to end or we will spend ourselves into oblivion and we won't get a good bang for the taxpayer dollars. and we won't be doing right for the american fighting soldier. so the point of my amendment is simple. it's going to be tough. making the type of budget decision that is we have to make

in a bipartisan -- decisions that we have to make in a bipartisan fashion to get these budgets under control. the defense budget should also be fair game, but what better place to start than where our own military leaders are instructing us to go. weapons programs they don't need, will save money, reduce the redundancy, and help deal with the budget deficit that is we are facing. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. members and staff are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: madam chairman, we had a long discussion on e.f.v. program and this legislation provides for an agreement that we are just about to reach where it's a win-win situation.

win for the taxpayer, it's not -- the taxpayer is not going to have to pay $145 million in termination costs. so money that can be used to complete the program. the marine corps is satisfied with this. i have been discussing with secretary gates for quite a long time now, too often the military starts a program, great idea, spends a lot of money, and the conceptual, design, research, and development only to cancel the program, get nothing for it, and lose the money. here's the case where we win. we get to use the -- $3 billion has been spent. we get to take advantage of completing that program with the money that we would pay to terminate the program anyway. slam wram -- slam ram basically a similar program, much smaller than the e.f.v. program. it's similar, they are about to

complete the development stage and it's on the shelf in the event they need to go to procurement immediately. so i oppose this amendment. it doesn't do good for the taxpayer or the military. i want to compliment mr. kind because we have had several opportunities to work together with his constituents, wounded constituents, and their families. and he's been very, very helpful. i want to thank him for having worked with us on those issues. and now i'm happy to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee and the defense appropriations committee. mr. dicks: thank you. the chair: two minutes to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: that's what we agreed to. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. for the same very reason. the expeditionary fighting vehicle is coming to an end.

and i agree with the chairman. it makes me cringe that they have spent $3 billion on this. for an additional $34 million we can finish the r&d phase of this program. that's what the chairman was talking about. and then we don't have to pay $145 million, as i understand it, in termination costs. i think it's just wise to get the final research done. i would reluctantly have o to oppose this amendment because it would take away our opportunity to get this better agreement that the chairman's talking about. slamram is a missile that is ground based. this program is coming to an end. being terminated as well. and we support that. again, i think we should -- reject the gentleman's amendment. but the outcome of what he is talking about will be achieved in the very near future. i reserve the balance of my time.

yield it back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: thank you, madam chair. i'm going to conclude my statements with this. i have great respect and admiration for the two gentlemen who have been serving on the defense appropriations committee for years. i'm not going to stand here and pretend i know more about the defense budget than these two gentlemen do. i don't. but i do tend to listen carefully to our own military leadership at the pentagon. secretary of defense gates said about the expeditiousary fighting vehicle over two decades the program's going to consume half marine corps procurement funds and nearly all of the ground vehicle budget. something they are trying to avoid. even though marine corps commandanlt has -- commandant has supported it in the past, he has recognized, i quote, and onerous fiscal program. so if we can't start here with these programs, where are we going to go on defense for cost savings? with that i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from massachusetts.

the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: as i understand the arguments of the chairman and the ranking member, it is we are going to get rid of these eventually, let's not do it quickly because you might save money prematurely. i never heard a weaker defense for continuing to spend money that at some point we are going to stop. why not stop now? i think the gentleman from wisconsin ought to be supported. the chair: time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i'd like to inquire of the chair how much time i have remaining. the chair: the gentleman from florida has two minutes remaining. mr. young: thank you. i will conclude this debate. the gentleman's time has expired . we conclude the debate that this is probably a very well-intentioned amendment. but it just gets in the way of working on clutions -- solution that is are a win for the taxpayer. and a win for the military.

and we should take advantage of every opportunity that we have to save the -- money for the taxpayer and get them something for it. that's what this amendment would prevent from happening. we had a lengthy discussion on the e.f.v. earlier in the debate yesterday. i'm more convinced than ever, as well-intentioned as the amendment might be, it is just not a good idea and it's not about the -- in the best interest of the military. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kind: with that i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment 48. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. this amendment would help increase the ability of the administration to leverage the resources they already have to support expansion and replication of charter schools that have shown to be effective. basically this amendment will remove a restriction that prevents regulation that prevents subgranting and doesn't allow charter schools to -- grants to be done through intermediaries which are generally venture philanthropy organizations like new schools venture fund. these organizations have proven that they can help guide charter schools and c.m.o.'s,

organizations that manage one or two, and help build them into successful, multisite organization that is support students' success. these organizations use the same model in the nonprofit sense. i want to emphasize they are nonprofits, as venture capital does in the private sector, and support excellence in the charter schools that are part of their portfolio. they encourage rigorous evaluations. they provide strategic guidance through board membership. one of the issues we takely have with charter schools is lack of quality governance. these intermediaries actually can help establish quality governance which is such an important determine gnat whether a charter school is successful. they can provide specific interventions as needed when something isn't working they can help. it will empower the administration to help be able to work through venture philanthropy organizations to better leverage federal funds. if you have x dollars in federal funds, they could combined that with two or three in private capital that they have raised to

have a more meaningful impact on student achievement to help expand and replicate what we know works with regard to charter schools. i'd like to yield to the ranking member of the education committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i would however hope that he might withdraw this amendment so we would have an opportunity to go through exactly what the thresholds would be for the department to award this right to the grantors to make these subgrants because obviously you have been a leader in the effort of improving the quality and number of charter schools. this is a $50 million pool of money that could rightfully be used for this purpose. but i think we want to make sure that we have some assurances as to accountability, as to the kinds of subgrants that would be made to expand the university of high quality, high performing charter schools. i thank him for offering this amendment. i do hope he would -- i know that congressman kleine is also

supportive of this -- klink is also supportive of this amendment. i hope we would go through it to rewrite the legislation. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. i look forward to working with the chair and ranking member. to ensure that the administration has all the schools they need to make sure the limited resources they have for expansion of models that we know work are used in the highest leverage way possible. i withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk to -- number 400. the chair: the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill already passed in the reading. does the gentleman from texas

seek unanimous consent to -- at this point in the reading? is there an objection? mr. rogers: object. the chair: objection is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i'm very sorry that the gentlelady cannot offer her very well thought out amendment on a technicality. i yield to her for three minutes to explain what her amendment would have done if they had been in order. . ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. it's important that -- it's unfortunate that republicans want to issue a point of order. we ask unanimous consent that amendments are placed in the record against job. that's what my amendment is about, it's about restoring the $5 billion the republicans wan to take out and block american

jobs. you can clearly see how long we've been here and there have been actually no jobs being created by republicans. this amendment does simply one thing. it restores the $5 billion in stimulus dollars that have created thousands upon thousands of jobs. it has created this housing, for low income housing, it's created this kind of map that show that stim las jobs have been all overmark and created 585,653 jobs. 253,000 projects. this is interesting that our friends can support poth because ma an agricultural subsidy but can create no jobs and they want to oppose restoring the $5 billion in stimulus dollars, i might call them reinvestment dollars. in addition, our friends want to ignore the fact that by closing or taking away $5

billion they close what we call community health clinics. yes, this is where americans are now getting their good health care on community clinics. so i would argue that it is a shame that we have a situation where you cannot present this amendment. jobs, the idea of infrastructure investment, the idea of low-income housing that is being created and a well projects like housing for the elderly in minnesota, apartments in the washington area, father murphy phase 3, 10 new reanl developments in shawnee, oklahoma. blackfeet housing, 223 homes, again, in montana. mount view villeage left -- loft, again in alaska, and pueblo housing in el paso, texas. can you tell me why you want to eliminate the idea and ability for individuals to work by taking away the moneys that have been invested in america?

that is what this has done. in houston alone, center point has been able to improve their grid to provide more energy for our community. we have gotten $84 million that have put people to work and have provided health care, have improved the environment. i would ask my colleagues to take away the point of order, to not say i'm out of order. if you're putting a point of order on american jobs. i think it is insane to not be able to allow a member to stand and say that the money you're taking away have proven themselves to be moneys that have been legitimate and have called upon the american people to rise up and to be employed. there are people who are now at their 99 president -- 9 th level of being unemployed and not able to get employment insurance. they need these jobs. the $5 billion that will be taken away will be impacting projects yet to come to rebuild

america's infrastructure. i am just asking, and i thank the gentleman from washington for allowing this explanation, but i am hopefully will be heard at least by the colleagues and the people of the united states that this amendment restoring simply $5 billion. there was a second amendment that was going to make the point that we don't want americans to know how much great work the recovery act has done by taking money away for signs that have been put up. i'm willing to withdraw that amendment. $5 billion is $5 billion to put americans to work. i am simply appalled at the fact that we don't have the opportunity to share with the american people their tax dollars to make sure that they have the opportunity to work, to have good health care, to have housing, and to have good energy relief to make sure that our environment is safe and that we expand our independence by having the kind of energy efficiency that seniors are in

need. so to the gentleman from washington, i do want to acknowledge that the recovery act moneys have been an effective tool for building jobs and frankly, 1,000 jobs were created in houston. i'd be happen poi to yield back. mr. dicks: the economists today say if we had not had stimulus, unemployment would be at 3%. i hear so -- at 13%. i hear so often on the other side that it didn't work. i move to strike the last word. choi the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield myself one minute. i hear so often that the unit -- the that the stimulus didn't work. i hear that the unemployment rate would be at 2 1/2% or 13%, if we can't have the stimulus bill. that's why we're worried about cuts here having a

countercyclical effect. i appreciate the gentlewoman's work on this and yield back the plans of my time. the chair: all time has been yielded back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? >> thank you, madam speaker, i rise as the designee of mr. jordan for amendment number 104. the chair: amendment number 104 printed in the congressional record, offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to the horder of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, and a member opposed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i thank you, madam speaker. the american people spoke loud and clear in november and they have continued to speak and hold us accountable. their message is clear. they are overtaxed. this government is overspent. and they have had enough of washington passing bills, regular ligses, rules, programs they can't afford and do not

want. they have said stop the out of control spending. washington does not have a revenue problem. washington has a very serious spending problem. they are ready for us to change the way the system operates. they want the fiscal house in order and there is a systematic way we can approach this. in the past couple of years, 26 different states have used this method, indeed, even tennessee. my state used it during a time of fiscal crisis. they have replaced billions of dollars in deficit spending an projections with spending cuts and now it is time for the federal government to follow the states. the republican study committee amendment makes an 11% cut on our legislative branch spending and a 5 1/2% cut in other nondefense, nonveteran,

nonhomeland security accounts. this amendment will save 22.-- will save $22.2 billion for the balance of thisphysial -- fiscal year and this year's deficit. i know not severn a fan of across the board cuts. but many of us are an so are our constituents. s that concept that should be implemented at the federal level and indeed it has been used before. president roosevelt used it at world war ii and from 1942 to 1944, they cut 20%. president truman with the korean war. they cut 28%. in 1950. it is used, it works, it has a history of working. it is imperative that we get the spending cut and across the board spend regular ducks are a very responsible way for us to do this.

i thank you, madam speaker, and i reserve the plans of our time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise to seek time in opposition that misguided amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: for 15 minutes? the chair: for 15 minutes. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, without objection. mr. dicks: let me remind my colleagues what the underlying c.r. does to existing programs, even before we consider the additional across-the-board cut offered by mr. jordan. a cut of $107 million from food safety inspections. this amendment, by mr. jordan, would take an additional $5.6 million. the c.r. also already cuts $2.4 million to the food and drug administration and this amendment would take an additional $22 million. cuts to state law enforcement assistance by $1.3 billion,

35%. compared to the current late. the -- rate. the jordan amendment would cut an additional $68 million. the original version also completely eliminated the cops hiring program but an amendment passed by the house this week from our side prevailed, reinstating some of that funding. cut $661 million below the current rate from the army corps of engineering, leaving hundreds of communities without critical flood control and navigation work. the jordan amendment would cut an additional $35 million. the c.r. also completely eliminates weatherization and tate energy programs. cuts $648 million from the -- for the nuclear nonproliferation program, increasing the likelihood of bomb grade material entering the united states. the yordan amendment would cut an additional $37 million. the c. reform cuts safe drinking water by 56% or $1.7 billion. the jordan amendment would cut

an additional $167.2 million. the c.r. cuts the maximum pell grant amount by $845 which helps more than eight million students afford college. the yordan amendment exacerbates this reduction by taking an additional $96 million from the program. the c.r. cuts head start by more than $1.1 billion. which is $500 million below the 2008 level. the junior dan amendment would cut an adegreesal $338 million. meaning that individual students would lose their right to head start. that teachers would be fired. that people would be unemployed because of this amendment. and the transportation and h.u.d. which already saw a cut of nearly $14 billion would be cut by an adegreesal $3 ppt 7 billion. impacting critical funding for roads and bridges and infrastructure across this country. this is a meat ax approach on top of a meat ax approach.

it's a double meat ax approach. and it is an amendment that we should defeat and defeat soundly and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his tie. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i rise to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. walsh. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. walsh: thank you, madam chair. i rise today in support of amendment number 104. we've spent the last few days talking about billions here, billions there. real programs, real people, but the american people have got to be shaking their heads. we are broke. we are $14 trillion in debt and we know it's more than that. by 2014, interest on the debt alone will spend more than we will on on all nondiscretionary spending except defense. by 2014, every citizen in the united states will spend $2,500 just to pay interest on the debt.

i appreciate the leadership the republican leadership has provided in being as bole as they can be on necessary important spending cuts, but my colleagues, we've got to have faith in the american people. they are ahead of us on this. they are ready. this is one of those rare moments when the american people are asking us to be bold. they're asking us to go one step further. i've got a brother who has been in the financial service industry for 20 or 30 years he sent me a text last night that said, keep the cuts coming, baby. the leadership, the lack of leadership the white house is providing on this issue is stunning. you have to lead. the american people are ahead of us. to get back to real fy-2008 spending levels to actually get $100 billion in cuts, my colleagues, don't be afriday of that. that's what the american people want. thank you, madam chair. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired this egentleman

from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the house appropriations committee, mr. rogers from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: i'm in opposition to this amendment, madam chairman. the house republican package we had before us represents the largest reduction in discretionary spending in the history of the nation. it's a historic package, much-needed spending cuts, reduckses that meets and exceeds the pledge goal of cutting $100 billion. in this package, there's $106 billion in cut spending including terminating 150 programs. these reductions were tough, they were thoughtful, made by going line by line through the budget, and cut or eliminating programs that don't work or that we can no longer afford by the people who know those programs best. the subcommittee chairs. the staff. and our members. working around the clock to

make it happen. they did the hard work of getting deep into the weeds, making the best possible choices of exactly where and how to cut these spendings. in contrast, rather than make careful decisions on specific program the jordan amendment hits everything indiscriminately in a heavy-handed way. we were elected to make choices, not run an automatic pilot. the chair: the gentlelady from -- the committee will rise informally. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the sthath. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 365, to make a technical amendment to

the education finance reform act of 2002. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. hoyt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyt: i thank the gentlelady for yielding the gentleman before said that these represent in the base bill the largest cuts we have ever made. that's true. but we are run -- mr. flake: we have the largest debt we have ever had. what the situation calls for is deeper cuts than in the underlying bill. if we're going to get on the right track here, we've got to understand that we have to make

unprecedented cuts and realize that what we're doing here is a rounding error compared to what we're going to have to do with entitlement spending and that's going to come. but to ensure that we can make those choices when we deal with entitlements, we've got to go deeper than we're going in this base bill. again, we're rupping a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year on a debt of $14 trillion. the $100 billion in the base bill is 1/15th of the entire deficit that we're running. just 1/15th. that's not enough. we have got to go further. i support the yordan amendment. let's make deeper cuts. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. brady, who has been the chair and ranking member of the house administration committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. brady: thank you for allowing me to speak of this i'm embarrassed to be here, i'm embarrassed to be a member of the house, i'm embarrassed that i have to stand up and fight for the little people that can't stand up for myself. i was here on 9/11, a police officers came in to get me out of the office. as he's taking me out, he's going back. in he's putting his life in harm's way and we're going to cut him? we're going to take money from him? it's ridiculous. madam speaker, we don't want to hurt our little guys and gals. we want to hurt our staff members, our sergeant at arms, the door keepers, the ladies in the cloakroom that take good care of us. they don't make overtime. they put their time in like we do. we're on 67 hours in the this house today. it's costing us $2 million on the -- to put this c.r. on the bridge to nowhere. that's where it's going. it's a disgrace we have to hurt the little people.

you hear about yield back. we yield back. we want them to yield back their money, we want them to yield back to us. madam speaker, i don't want them to yield back. i'm not going to let them yield back i'm not going to yield back, i'm just done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 11 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. before the gentleman starts, the committee will be in order. the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. guinta: i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding her time. i am not embarrassed to be here part of this institution. i'm honored. i'm honored to represent new hampshire in its quest for

fiscal kissplin, fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint. ladies and gentlemen we are at the precipice of our country in materials of spending. we simply offer an amendment that further reduces the necessary spending restraints our couldn'tly ry is tchanding. this is about listening to our country. listening to the people who just elected this congress to restore discipline with respect to our spending recognitions in washington. ladies and gentlemen, this amendment, which i'm happy to co-sponsor, first cut ours own institution. in new hampshire, i said to the people of new hampshire, we're going to cut first ourselves before we make other tough cuts in this country. this amendment further reduces our own expenditure. finally, it takes 5 ppt 5% across the board with a few exceptions in the eight nonsecurity dwhoifings c.r. i support this amendment. i think we've got to get

serious about spending in this nation and send a strong message that we're listening to the american people. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished former chairman and ranning member of the subcommittee, mr. olvor -- mr. olver from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. olver: this is a thoughtless and destructive amendment. i trongly oppose the underlying bill and believe it profoundly limits the transportation options for americans and will damage our economy through hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. but i do respect that chairman latham provided oversight and made tough decisions on priorities. unfortunately, the jordan amendment after all these days of individually considered amendments, does none of that. it reduces every account by 5 1/2% without any understanding or probably even concern for the impact.

for example, it ensures a part-time air traffic control system by cutting more than -- excuse me, more than half a billion from the operating expenses of the f.a.a. does the gentleman really intend to close down the columbus, cincinnati, and cleveland airports one day each month? this ealt will result in the funding shortfall of nearly $ billion in the tennessee section 8 program, reresulting in the eviction of 20,000 peep. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from tennessee. ms. black burn: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to mr. cole from oklahoma, a valued member of the interior appropriations subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cole: it's been a great week for fiscal conservatives.

we've actually enacted or are on the verm of enacting historic cuts and passing them through this body. we've let others come and participate with their ideas an suggestions. my concern is not the amount of money involved in the amendment, it's the method adopted to achieve the savings. across the board cuts essentially mean you lose the ability to eliminate to root out and to prioritize. in fact, you adopt the priorities of the people that wrote the original budget. with all due respect to my friends on this side that means we are adopting our friends on this side' priorities when we cut in this manner. so i think we should embrace the spirit behind this amendment. it's well motivated. but reject the method and go back to the thoughtful, targeted and tough kind of decisions that chairman rogers, the appropriations committee, and our entire conference and every member has had the opportunity to participate in. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i yield 30 seconds to mr. huelskamp from kansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. huelskamp: the american people have spoken they demand that washington stop its out of control spending now, not some time in the future. despite what the administration tells you, every last dime in this bill will be borrowed. every last time of the $1 trillion will be borrowed. and the cost of this bill this bill alone, will exceed $500 for every single household and american. just for this bill. we have -- household in america. just for this bill. we have to stop this now. the massive debt burden on our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren cannot be afforded. i yield back. choi the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: mr. bonner of alabama, a distinguished member of the committee, i yield one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bonner: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i

rise to add my voice in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from ohio. i too am a member of the r.s.c. i think many of the good points made here on the house floor in the last few days can be attributed to the good work and the heart felt convictions of the members of the republican study committee and its long standing commitment to freedom and liberty. but i believe this approach taken by this amendment is misguided. madam chair, the appropriations committee has put before the house a c.r. that makes significant cuts to all areas of our federal government. but these cuts have been made with deliberate intent and after careful consideration. in other words, they have been done surgically and i believe this amendment would take a more indiscriminate, hatchet approach. the republican pledge to america states we will roll back government spend og prestimulus, prebailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone. but it doesn't say we have to

accomplish this task in the first spending bill before us and it did not envision accomplishing it in the remaining seven months. i hope we can defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. at this time, i yield one minute to mr. pence of yane. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pence: thank you, madam chair. this nation currently faces a $1.65 trillion deficit. $14 trillion national debt. despite all the talk of the president's so-called fiscal discipline, this administration just proposed a budget that will add $12 trillion to that mountain range of debt facing our children and grandchildren.

fortunately, rn the leadership of chairman rogers, house republicans are keeping our word to the american people. we said if you gave us a sec chance to lead this congress, we would fight at least -- we would find at least $100 billion in savings this year. house republicans will do that before we adjourn for this week. but house conservatives believe we can do more. i truly believe that the jordan amendment, which provides an across the board cut of 5.5%, more for the legislative brample, doesn't touch our most cherished ally, israel is one of those opportunities where you have a chance to underpromise and overperform. we said to the american people that wode we'd do at least $100 billion. we've added hundreds of millions of dollars to that. let's do more. let's do $22 billion more. let's underpromise, overdeliver and set this nation back on a pathway toward fiscal responsibility. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired -- expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute

to the distinguished gentlelady from connecticut, ms. the lauro, the ranking member on the labor-hhs subcommittee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: if the majority party wanted to do something about the deficit, they could look to other parts of the budget for significant cuts and savings instead of coming backen over and over again with deeper cuts to the programs that make investment in education, health care, job training and in scientific research. democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. we believe you ought to start by ending the tax subsidies and special interest waste. let's look at it. $40 billion in oil subsidies. $ billion in farm subsidies. $7.4 billion that could be save pid shutting down the process of treaty shopping. $3 billion a year that could be saved if we allow cheaper generic drugs in the market this across the board amendment cut is an example of the majority's reckless rush to slash without regard to the impact on the economy.

the businesses that create jobs, or middle class working people who are doing their best for their families and educating their kids for the future. the majority is hitting families and children and the elderly and they are not laying a glove on the special interest tax subsidies. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. bar ton. the chair: the gentleman is -- mr. barton:. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barton: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: i rise in support of the yordan amendment. i've been in the congress 26 years, i'm supportive of what chairman rogers and all the appropriators have done. i think it's an interesting point to have the ranking minority member yielding to the chairman of the committee but that is congress at its finest. but i would point out that our budget deficit this year is $1.6 trillion.

i d