virginia, mr. mckinley on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 217 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute te. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. house of representatives will the house -- end the rules and pass any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commcial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 239, the nays 183, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment 545 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from kansa mr. pompeo, in which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes preveiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 545 printed in the congrsional record offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requeed. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made posble by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of e house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 234, the nays 187. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 200 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 200 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any usof the clod-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 239, the nays 182 and the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment 482 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from nevada, mr. heller, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 482 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. heller of nevada. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. membs will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are the 209, the nays 213. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a

request for a recorded vote on amendment 563 presented in the congressional record offered by the gentlelady from south dakota, mrs. noem, on which further proceedings were poppede but which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment nber 563 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. gnome of south dakota. the chair: -- ms. nome of kd. -- ms. nome of soutdakota. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage othe house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 255, the nays 168, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment 430 printed in the

congressional record offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, o which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 430 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pitts of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been reqsted. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 239 and the nays are 183 and the amendment is agreed to. unfinished business is vote on on amendment 241 on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 241 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kearny of deware. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the unitedtates house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of reesentatives.]

the chair: the yeas 121 and the nays are 301 and the amendment is not agreed to. the committe will be in order. for what purpose does

distinguished majority leader rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the chair: i doubt there is objection. mr. cantor: i would say to the members we have one more amendment in this series of votes. after which we are looking at debate time of about one hour. so i would advise the members that it would be probably be best to stick close to the chamber, because we would expect the final series of votes on this bill and for the day to be within one hour. and i yield back. the chai without objection, two-minute voting will resume. amendment 164 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from south carolina on which further proceedings are postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 164 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mulvaney

of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. the chair: the committee will be in order.

the chair: the committee will come to order. the chair requests that members will remove audible conversations so the committee may continue its work. members in the aisle --

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. number 255. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 255 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. huelskamp of kansas. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman may proceed. hules mr. huelskamp: i rise to speak about the importance of protecting america's workers. my home state is one of 22 right

to work states which a worker cannot be forced to join a union. this ensures worker freedom. card check poses a direct threat to this freedom. the last congress went get the will of the american people and the current administration still seems intent on pushing it on american workers to circumvent necessary approval is to attack our representative form of government. if enacted through back doors and without congressional approval, card check would eliminate the use of secret ballot for union elections. mr. chairman, we have to preserve the use of the secret ballot. it is a fundamental institution of democracy. if the private ballot is eliminated, it opens up the opportunity to strong arm workers in the unions. just this week, in wisconsin, we have seen what unions do if they

don't get their way and the administration is pushing their way. i thought another vehicle would be better for this issue, but i could not pass up this opportunity to offer this and i withdraw this colleague. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 273 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: the gentleman from iowa and member opposed will be recognized for 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. kicking i yield myself -- mr. king: i yield myself two minutes. thank you, mr. chairman.

this amendment is before the house this evening is an amendment that shuts off the funding within this continuing resolution to what we will know as the davis-bacon act. the davis-bacon act was generated during the early years of the depression era about 1931 and designed to keep the african american workers out of the trade unions in new york. that's the source of it. and i have been underneath this law of my working life as a construction contractor and my hands-on experience is as strong as anyone's in this chamber. the costs that are added to our construction projects is what we should be thinking about, this congress of ausetert, cutting spending and cutting spending and it's this, the extra wages paid out unnecessarily total $10.9 billion according to heritage study.

i have done this study and looked at the difference in the cost, davis-bacon, prevailing wage. i will tell you it is union scale mandated by federal law and no reason for us to adhere to a union scale mandated by federal law. it increases the cost of a project between 8% and 35%, depending how much is materials and labor. other data shows an increase of 9% to 37%. our numbers match well. the cost of compliance for contractors are over $190 million a year and distorts the relationship between management and labor. the question becomes this. do we want to create jobs or cost jobs? do we want to build four miles of road under davis-bacon or five. four schools or build five? do we want to have inflation of wages by 22% according to some

of the studies or see the price go up? do we want to see construction industry that reduces workers by as much as $25,000 in minority workers. i reserve. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? mr. delauro: i rise in opposition. it is yet another illustration of how the majority is making this continuing resolution a trojan horse filled with ideology that irrepably harms working family. the davis-bacon act ensures workers on a government act be paid no less for wages paid in the community for similar work. a simple concept, former president bush understood this concept when he reinstated davis-bacon rules for reconstruction contract in the aftermath of hurricane katrina.

despite the majority's arguments, the davis-bacon act has no effect on the total cost of construction. study after study reveals higher productivity makes up for any additional labor costs, essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law was repealed. if this amendment is enacted into law we would be cheating workers of a fair wage with no cost savings to show for it. this amendment is nothing more than an attempt to accelerate the race to the bottom. that way of doing business which tells workers in this country, you do not matter. your right to a decent wage does not matter. your dreams and your aspirations to do better, to provide for your family does not matter. all that counts is the power to extract the cheapest possible costs. the lowest labor costs in return for the highest possible profit. this does not reflect our values as a nation. certainly the values that created america's middle class.

today, as we face 9% unemployment, wages falling, the number of families in poverty growing, increasing costs for just about everything. gutting the law that ensures a decent job and a fair wage for workers is the wrong direction. it is the very future of the middle class that is in jeopardy if we pass amendments like the king amendment. and with it the idea that a society can act with a shared sense of purpose and a responsibility to each other. vote against this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i'd yield myself 30 seconds. and it's a little bit amazing to me the gentlelady can get so focused on this. i'm the one that should be focused in it in that way and animated. the taxpayers should be animated at this. they should understand that when the federal government sets union scale and drives the price up and the taxpayers can't afford it, it's not about

a race to the bottom. the quality of work for my workers was always there. we take care of our people 12 months out of the year with a benefits package. we're not hiring them out of the union hall for a day but you make us pay the prices as if we were. we uphold our workers and take care of them. we have the quality that's there. it's a matter of fact and proven, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i rise to speak against this amendment. the davis-bacon act requires workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. sounds fair. the davis-bacon act prevents the federal government, a large, influential construction owner from using precious tax dollars to undercut local wage standards for its investments

in construction work. those against davis-bacon say it drives up costs, not so. why don't we deal with facts for a change? davis-bacon has no effect on colt cost of construction. study after study reveals productivity makes up for any additional labor costs, essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law was repealed. in other words, projects using highly skilled workers often cost less than those using low wage, low-skilled workers. opponents claim the government can save billions by eliminating davis-bacon protections ignore productivity, safety, and the economic benefits which contribute to the real cost-effectiveness of davis-bacon. in addition, the davis-bacon minimum wage must reflect the rate of contribution to retirement, health insurance, apprenticeship training, and disability insurance.

by including fringe benefits and wage calculations, the davis-bacon delivers health care and pensions for workers on these projects. without prevailing wages, investments, work-related injuries increase, pension coverage drops, fewer workers have health care insurance, wages stagnate and even drop over time, and total construction costs are still unchanged. in fact, the real economic significance of davis-bacon wage requirements for federally assisted construction projects is that it maintains community standards by preventing bottom-feeding contractors from driving down construction workers' wages and working conditions. i urge my colleagues to vote down this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i would yield myself 15 seconds. and announce to the chairman i

have just been called a bottom-feeder. a bottom-feeder for providing 12 months out of the year work for my employees, health care benefits and retirement benefits, and i take it as an insult but i'm not going to ask to take the lady's words down and i'd like to yield two minutes now to the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: it's been said by many that when one goes to heaven or hell, you have to fly through the atlanta airport. just yesterday i was talking to a contractor who's involved in doing the expansion of the atlanta airport, the hartsfield-jackson airport. and we were talking about his business, what's going on. and he was complaining to me yesterday about the construction costs and the

increase that's mandated by davis-bacon. the previous speaker said that it doesn't raise the cost, but that's totally false. in fact, this contractor told me just yesterday that the increased costs to the people of atlanta, georgia, and the state of georgia is 40% above what it would be if we did not have davis-bacon just hering over the heads like a dagger, causing them to have to pay a higher amount of money. while we're here in tough economic times, we need to look at what the federal government is doing to try to increase the cost for our children and our grandchildren so that they have to pay it in the future. and davis-bacon is one of those laws, antiquated laws that does cost not only today's taxpayers

a tremendous amount of money, but it's going to cost our children and our grandchildren their future. the reason it does that is because we're spending money we don't have. and davis-bacon is a culprit in causing the debt of this country, the debt of atlanta, georgia, and the state of georgia to go higher. it's time to put davis-bacon to rest. it's outlived its usefulness. and we have to vote to stop the spending, vote yes on this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from keblingt. -- from connecticut. mr. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. latourette: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i tell this story every time we talk about davis-bacon. they were republicans and what

was occurring was you had out-of-town workers coming into new york city to build a hospital and undercutting the local labor market at a time when a lot of people were out of work. that's what davis-bacon is and quite frankly, the last test we had on davis-bacon was during the hurricanes on the gulf coast where president bush suspended it for a period of time and we made the case to him you weren't saving any money and not only were you not saving money, you're having workers come in because there weren't anti-kickback and you had a lot of illegal workers coming down that still live in louisiana undercutting the local labor market. i get we don't like unions on this side of the aisle, but i have to tell you if you look at the labor rates for operating backhoes and everything else in the gentleman's -- the author of the amendment, a carpenter, makes $14.45 under davis-bacon, a backhoe operator is $14.53 and quite frankly, i don't want somebody making less than that operating a backhoe near my house. >> hear, hear.

the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i would be pleased to yield a minute to mr. bartlett of maryland. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bartlett: i don't think anybody would object to paying workers on these projects, but the real prevailing wage. what's called prevailing wage is not the prevailing wage. i have a friend who does a lot of ornamental iron work in these buildings around here and he lives out in hagerstown. and the contract he has to put that in requires him to pay prevailing wage when he puts it in down here. the same people that install it down here do the work of preparing it out there. but now in a good job in hagerstown and that's only about 70 miles from here. when he comes down here to put it in down here he has to double their pay for the time he's down here. it's not prevailing wage and that's why it's wrong. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield two

minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady for the time. when i look at this amendment by representative king, it's the closest thing to a jobs bill i've seen since january started, and it's disappointing. the reality is i wish we weren't debating this at nearly 3:00 in the morning because i would love the american people to see that this is what substitutes for a job bill in this day and age. the fact is that this is what the very fight is all about, do we want to build a middle class, a robust, strong middle class, or do we want to pay people the least we possibly can pay them and keep them desperate and drive wages down to nothing so that we have a very small group of really wealthy people and a vast group of really desperate people who would do anything to work, and who can have their unions busted because you got people who got to do what they got to do and cross that line.

the fact is, is that this is the heart of what it's all about, and i urge rejection of this amendment. this is the fight, shall we have a middle class and pay people a decent wage, or shall we continue on this drive to separate increased wage and equality in this country so the richest have so much and the rest of us just don't have much at all? davis-bacon is good legislation. because it strengthens our middle class so that people can actually have a decent quality of life, send their kids to school, be able to send them to college, have a decent retirement. it's about making a strong middle class based on a decent, livable wage. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i'd be pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. setsman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

>> i'd like to share a story from a couple years ago of davis-bacon. the people we often forget about here when we get to the debate are the taxpayers themselves. the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the wages davis-bacon drives up. after the stimulus bill was passed a couple years ago, even though i opposed the idea of what the stimulus bill was going to do, we in our community are taking the initiative to put in sewer systems around our lakes, our rivers, to protect our soil and our resources. . our projects had been bid out without davis-bacon wages and contacted our offices and said we would like to drive our costs down on these particular projects. after research and finding out they weren't eligible because they did not bid the project with davis-bacon wages, they

were ineligible and therefore, were going to be paying a higher rate, were going to be paying the contractors themselves at a lower wage because they weren't eligible for the stimulus money which would have put infrastructure into our communities, which i believe that stimulus money would have been better used for in building longer term assets for our communities but they were ineligible because they did not have davis-bacon wages. we have to remember the taxpayers who fund these projects because of the higher costs and each community individually recognizes that their labor costs are different and shouldn't always be required to deal with federal standards. i ask that you support this amendment. and i appreciate the gentleman from iowa in bringing it

forward. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i ask what the time is og both sides. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut has 13 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from iowa has 121 4 minutes remange. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: gentleman made the point. here we are at quarter to 3 in the morning going after the working people in this country.

1932, we didn't have unemployment insurance. your next amendment will be no money should be spent for unemployment insurance in this country because that creates that moral hazard, they sit at home and wait for that check to come in and won't go down to look for work. and we had no worker comp. in this country before 1910. guy got hurt, threw him out in the street and got somebody new. we didn't care. if that's the kind of country you want, the next bill you want to bring out here, let's repeal the minimum wage. why do we have minimum wage. this building was built, prevailing wage in this city when this building was built, it was built by slaves. now, is that where you want to go? the government of the united states should set a standard for the working people. if you want to back the middle

class, you will keep the minimum wage. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind all members to direct their comments to the chair and not to other members. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i would point out that i lived under davis-bacon wage scale and i met payroll under that and i worked for a wage under the davis-bacon wage scales and worked in shops in the winter time and construction projects in the field before it froze up. i have been on all sides, i have been a laborer on the pipeline, heavy equipment operator and owner and managed people and i watched what davis-bacon has done and it distorts the relationship between management

and labor and takes away from the individuals the aviolate or the ability to contribute to if the process. on the government says, you are going to pay your laborers $14 and other side $21 and maybe $35 but if it happens to be a finish machine, $40. you watch your workers jockey for the highest paying job. if you sit back, they will be scrambling on to climb onto the least useful for the most money and they rolled it and the wage price has gone up and no longer competitive and have to go back on the job and this is cracking the whip so you have people pushing as hard as possible and raises the tension and takes allot of the pleasure in taking

pride in your work because labor is pitted against workers. no way to unrun a business or a company or a country to think that we here in this congress should be one of the ones deciding what someone should get paid and knowing it is union scale and takes 2 1/2 years to get a ruling what is prevailing wage and what isn't and we don't know what it is for 2 1/2 years. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i have one more speaker. do you yield back your time? mr. king: i would be my own last speaker. i would be happy to finish up

and yield back to the gentlelady. could i inquire as to the balance of the time? the chair: 10 1/4 minutes and the gentlelady has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. king: i would yield myself the balance of my time and i point out into this time there has been a misunderstanding with the agreement on the link of this amendment discussion. we agreed to take it down to 10 minutes each and when the announcement was made it was confusing to each of us. i would like to wrap up in one minute and yield to the

gentlelady that she thinks is appropriate to close. if that would be agreed. i'm going to move ahead with my part of this close. and picking up where i left off. the inefficiencies that are created by davis-bacon are multiplied in the costs that are in the jobs that we do. it is an 8% to 35% in the overall costs of our construction projects. we need to keep people at work, means fewer people are working for more money and any efficiencies are built in, they distort the cost of these wages. it is important for us to know this isn't the first debate before this congress but the first debate that has taken place since the republican majority has taken over in 2011. but back in 1995, some of the co-sponsors on the original davis-bacon repeal were boehner,

herger, bartlett and wolf co-sponsored a similar amendment and i would urge adoption of this amendment and strong vote to cut the funding off to anything that would be enforcing davis-bacon wages and i would yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield the remaining time to mr. andrews of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: members of both parties should oppose this amendment because it rests on three misjufments. the first is that the wages that are established by this davis-bacon practice are union-imposed wages. the fact of the matter is they are prevailing wages determined by a survey of the local

marketplace. the second misjudgment is that the way this works is that it always raises the costs of the construction project. the fact is quite the opposite. when the productivity rises, the value rises. and if you have a bitter performance and fewer errors and faster completion of a project, productivity rises and you get more value. but the most important misjudgment is that it's one more time the wrong issue at the wrong time. there are a lot of americans awake at this hour. thankfully for them they are probably not watching this debate but awake at this hour because this is another day, another week and another month with no pay check, no job and no hope. and what they want us to do is to work together to put them back to work. what we have seen in the last 24

hours is a debate over whether to defund planned parenthood, a debate over whether to repeal most of the environmental protections that have taken 40 years to buildup in this country, a debate over whether people have the right to know if they are buying safe toys and now whether to repeal a successful labor-management partnership. it is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. vote no. ms. delauro: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from iowa. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be

postponed. for what purpose does gentlelady new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 567 offered by ms. hayworth of new york. the chair: the gentlelady from new york and member opposed each will be recognized for three minutes. ms. hayworth: 3404 created the independent payment advisory board known by ipab. this board will be charged with cutting the growth rate of medicare spending. it is designed as a bureaucracy that will be looking not at how

to improve patient care but how to hit an expenditure target. it limits what ipab will be able to do to restrict cost growth. it cannot recommend higher cost-sharing or restrict benefits or eligibility. the primary means of the targets is to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals and will reduce access to providers, access that patients need to have. as the providers will find they will not be able to afford medicare's reimbursement rates. congress gave up power to the ipab. if they believe the cuts won't work or too draconian, it will take an act by future congresses. this is an and difficult occasion of responsibility whose members are expected to make these decisions, not unelected

unaccountable bureaucrats. it does more than a passing resemblance to the british national institute for clinical excellence. one example is a doctor will demonstrate that the similarity should give all of us pause. until a couple of years ago, they refused to pay treatment for a form of mack can you lar degeneration if the sufferer had good vision. this is nearly impossible for an american to fathom that a government agency would compel a doctor to, in effect, calmly watch a patient go blind in one eye even though vision-saving treatment was available. if an unelected board of vizzers is compelled to make decisions on the basis of cost, this is

the awful choice that our patients and doctors may be forced to accept and this is one of the reasons that the affordable care act was repealed last month. we honor the geels of this law to allow all americans to have good access to affordable insurance but we need to achieve those goals while approving the choice that americans deserve. as we craft alternatives that will honor the best of american medicine we will best serve our citizens by prohibiting any funding towards the implementation of the independent payment advisory board. i urge the support for the amendment i'm sponsoring and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes.

ms. delauro: this long series of defunding health reform amendments shows how far the house is straying from a serious legislative process. so far today the house has passed no fewer than three separate overlapping and duplicative amendments that prohibit the use of funds to carry out the affordable care act. first, the house passed the rehberg amendment prohibiting use of funds for this purpose by any agency funded in the labor-hhs labor appropriations bill. a few minutes later the house passed an amendment by mr. king prohibiting the use of funds by any federal agency for this purpose. and a few minutes after that vote, the house passed another amendment by mr. king prohibiting funds to pay the salary of any federal employee to implement or administer the

affordable care act. the majority party does not like the affordable care act. and would like to cut off all funding for the act's implementation. now, that much is clear. but how many times do we need to pass the same prohibition yesterday and today? we're three -- will three times be enough? or will the house bring more and more amendments doing essentially the same thing until everyone on the majority side has satisfied their urge to make clear just how opposed they are to expanding the availability of health care in this country, which is what the affordable care act is all about. instead of this pointless debate, we should be working on what the american public wants.

they want us to create jobs. they want us to get this economy going again. they want to make sure that they have a job to be able to send their child to school, and yes, they would like to have health care benefits so when they get sick they will be able to have the kind of treatment that all of us in this body have by virtue of being a member of the congress. we go to the head of the line. they can't get the same kind of care that we get and day in and day out of these last several days we've watched our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do everything that they can, everything that they can to deny the american public the opportunity to have the same kind of health care that members of congress have. i urge a no vote on this.

the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york, ms. hayworth. 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment a sufficient number having arisen 154 printed in the congressional record -- amendment number 154 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i would like to recognize the other gentleman from texas, mr. canseco, for 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. canseco: i rise in strong support of the burgess amendment. last year as a part of a $126 billion bailout bill for states, $10 billion were set aside to be distributed to the states for education. the state of texas was set to receive $830 million as part of this education funding. now, as far as we're concerned, government spending does not create jobs or economic prosperity, nonetheless, the money was appropriated for all states in the union, yet tucked into this legislation was an amendment that was deliberately and maliciously slipped into it. that imposed a restriction on the state of texas and only texas so that for texas to receive the money would force texas to violate its constitution. the restrictive amendment

required that texas guarantee that spending levels for elementary and secondary education not dip below 2010 levels for three years. this is troubling. to accept the funds, texas would have to violate the state constitution. neither the governor or the state government branches are able to make budget decisions that bind future legislation -- legislatures. this amendment is not about whether or not taxpayers' money will be spent or saved since the funds have already been appropriated. the amendment is about fairness. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. canseco. thank you. yield back. the chair: does the gentlelady from connecticut seek time in opposition? ms. delauro: yes. i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: when texas

received $3.25 billion of education stimulus funds over the objection of every texas republican, governor perry played a shell game that left texas schools not a dime better off than if no federal aid had come in the first place. that is the only reason that last summerall 12 democratic texas members from chet edwards to silvestre reyes, united, joined together in offering our save our schools amendment which today is federal law. tonight's proposal, 6-9 to nullify it so governor perry can reach for a bailout, even though it means taking $830 million away from texas school children. defectively written, this amendment fails to repeal anything. the enforcement funds that it would limit are not in this bill. they are already appropriated.

vote no on a very flawed amendment for a failed purpose. stop begging washington for help, governor. just sign the application. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. mr. burgess: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from fort worth, texas, ms. granger, for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. granger: i know it's late and people are tired but it's not too late to right a wrong and the wrong that was done is against the school children of texas to the tune of $830 million. the congress is asking the governor of texas to do something that he has constitutionally unable to do. and what's happening to our schools is the schools, as they are in many states, but with this extra burden in texas, scrambling to find ways to

afford to keep those classrooms openly and the teachers there. what we're asking you to do is release texas from this burden that only texas had that was put on texas by this congress, i think unintended by most of the people in this congress. so i would say tonight, this is an issue that deals with texas but it is every school child and every teacher in our state. thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: to my colleagues, what would you do if $3 billion in education was denied to the school children of texas or south carolina or california? you'd come to their aid. nine members, democrat members, lonely members, all by ourselves, decided to fight for the school districts of texas.

they called us and asked us for help. what we did was just ask the governor to certify that the dollars that we would send him that had no votes from the republicans would be for the school children of texas. i will do it tomorrow, yesterday, and forever. now today our school districts are being cut. six in my district. houston, texas, hisd is being cut $300 million. our governor is going against the funding process of this country. you cannot take and hoard money for children and expect us to sit idly by. i am proud to be of nine democrats who stood up for the children. i ask my colleagues to stand up for us. let the moneys go to the children and not in the pockets of the governor of the state of texas. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. burnles: may i inquire to the remaining time? the chair: the gentleman from texas has one half minute

remaining and the gentlelady from connecticut has one minute remaining. mr. burgess: i'll yield myself the balance of our time. we're hearing a lot about $1.25 billion sent to texas in the funds in 2010-2011. this money was actually appropriated by the texas state legislature. texas had 29 ayes, two nays, the house 142 ayes, two nays in a bipartisan fashion. it was not the governor, it was the state legislature appropriately that dealt with this money. mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent a letter from governor perry be inserted into the record. texas has long prioritized public education funding from 2000-2009. texas public education increased $9 billion or 82%. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. and the gentleman's request has been covered under general leave. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to mr. reyes of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute.

mr. reyes: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to mr. burgess' amendment because the state of texas today is facing a $27 billion deficit. and last week, our governor, rick perry, came to washington to ask our republican colleagues for an $830 million bailout. and voila, we have mr. burgess' amendment. if this amendment passes, it will shortchange our schools and give a huge bailout to governor rick perry. last year, as you have heard, he accepted more than $3 billion in federal funds and instead of going and putting that money towards education in texas, he used it to expand the state's tax surplus rainy day fund. today mr. burgess' amendment would give governor perry absolutely a blank check. how good is that? giving an $830 million bailout

to the same state leadership that robbed texas children and texas schools and texas teachers of that money before. at a time when our -- with that i ask support to bring down this amendment. thank you. >> mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: and i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank my colleague and ranking member from washington state. i rise in opposition to this amendment. representative burgess' amendment would endanger the $830 million already set aside for classroom and school districts in texas through the education jobs fund that was passed last august. at a time when our state is facing almost a $27 billion deficit, these are crucial moneys that could be used immediately to help school districts throughout texas. let me tell you, give you a

little history. during the recovery act in 2009, texas received $12 billion. of that, $3.2 billion was supposed to be for public education. our governor used that, and the legislature used the $12 billion. they did not use the $3.2 billion. they used it instead of supplementing, they used it in place of the current education funding. and here the governor went all over the country and still getting books signed saying, you know, how bad the federal government is. but they didn't turn back that $12 billion, they used it to plus up the rainy day fund that's over $9 billion now and they don't even want to use that now. so what we did that the democratic members from texas at that time said we want to make sure this $830 million goes to the school children of texas. and that's what this would do and that's what this law does. it would make sure that that money would go to the school

children. it wouldn't get stuck in austin. it would go down to my houston school district, gelena park school district who are having to cut their budgets now because they didn't get that $3.2 billion two years ago. that's why the burgess amendment should be defeated, mr. chairman. and that's why we put this amendment in the law and it's in the law now and i'm proud of it because we want to make sure -- why don't you let the money go to the school districts instead of to the folks that decided to keep it in the state capitols. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the gentleman -- >> i object. mr. dicks: you can't object. the chair: the gentleman from washington controls the time for striking the requisite number of words, he's entitled to five minutes. he has -- mr. dicks:: three. the chair: 2:45 remaining. mr. dicks: i yield 45 seconds. >> will the gentleman yield?

mr. dicks: i yield to the distinguished gentleman. mr. rogers: we bent over backwards to accommodate the gentleman but this has gone beyond what we agreed to. mr. dicks: we will finish this up in 45 seconds. mr. rogers: will the gentleman yield this gentleman a minute? mr. dicks: yeah, i would be delighted to do that. . mr. dicks: i yield a minute to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from from washington cannot yield blocks of time. mr. dicks: that's right. i can regain the time mr. burgess: i yield back any time that was yielded to me. we need to vote on this amendment and move on. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman from texas. >> i enter into the record the record of organizations all over the state of texas and the statement of the texas

delegation last year and this year. governor perry may have come up here on the book tour for his book "federal up" but not afraid to ask for federal aid even though it takes it away from our school children. there is a clear path to get this money. the governor has to sign a three-page application like he did to get the aid he kept for purposes other than education. though this is presented as an attempt to repeal our amendment, it does not repeal it but a meaningless gesture though it does cloud up the possibility -- mr. dicks: regaining my time. dog dog suggests that texas is not entitled to any money. let us not shut the door to opportunity. reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the the gentleman from texas.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas asks for a recorded vote. punt to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess will be postponed. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the gentlelady from hawaii had an amendment she is going to withdraw and you can explain what your attempt attempted to do and we aren't going to offer it.

ms. hanabusa: the amendment i offered has to do with the native hawaiian housing block grant. it is not like any other block grant and fulfills the trust obligation that this congress created in 1920. the act recognized that it was necessary to return native hawaiians to their land, tradition, culture and values. what the native hawaiian housing block grant is facilitate that, it is nonpartisan in hawaii, one that our governor considers to be her legacy and one that has done exactly what we want to see these grants do. thank you very much. mr. dicks: and i appreciate the gentlelady withdrawing her amendment and we can proceed with the next speaker.

the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. for what purpose does -- mr. dicks: could i ask, is this the latourette amendment at this point and aren't going to bring up the other amendments? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. latourette: i would like to call up the latourette amendment that has been pre-printed in the record and made in order. the clerk: amendment number 540 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. latourette of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette and member opposed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: i thank the chairman very much that we are going to reduce the time limit on this, 10 minutes per side and i will move through it.

little issue of the drafting that we will address in the debate and may have a motion at the end of my discussion but i am honored to be joined by mr. gibson and mr. dent. i hate across-the-board cuts and i don't support it but i have to tell you that this c.r. as it currently stands is the by-product of the fact that we didn't get any appropriation bills done last year and have a deadline of march . i don't think the chame of the full committee likes the c.r. that we are considering. if he did, he wouldn't have been required to write it three times to get the bill to the floor. the salient points, the substitute we are presenting tonight is a deeper cut than the base bill. the base bill is advertised in saving $106 billion. this amendment cuts $120 billion and cuts numbers in defense, homeland, israel and gitmo,

earmarks are gone, stimulus money is back. to my republican colleagues, if this debate is about the number, this is a bigger number, $120 billion. if it's about social engineering, then you'll vote on no on this particular amendment. to my democratic friends, i say we can't give speeches well, we would like to cut stuff and we want to cut that stuff and don't want to cut this stuff. the president's vision of a freeze was a bold strategy in 1995 when i got here, was a failed strategy in 2011. this particular substitute restores some and across-the-board sacrifice and reserve the balance of my time. mr. dicks: i request the time in opposition to the amendment. i rise in strong opposition to

the latourette amendment. it really pains me to not be able to help my friend from ohio who is a valued member of the appropriations committee who is a member of the interior subcommittee and whom i enjoy working with very much. but the latourette amendment would cut 31% from agriculture, 20% from c.j.s., 11% from energy and water, 19% from financial services, 5% from homeland security, 19% from interior, 17% from labor-h.h.s. 12% from state and foreign operations and 30% from transportation. the amendment failed to incorporate for afghanistan and iraq operations provided by section 1018 of the first continuing resolution. omitting this resolution cuts the department of defense contingency funding by nearly

$30 billion. as a result, the amendment vastly underfunds d.o.d.'s requirements for fiscal year 2011 and preclude effective conduct of operations and put deployed troops at risk sm the amendment would harm job growth. for example in the transportation, housing and urban development subcommittee, the latourette amendment would cut nearly 30% or $20 billion in program and activities under the committee's jurisdiction. this would lead to a part-time air traffic control system by cutting $2.8 billion from f.a.a., cause severe reductions in amtrak and this amendment would provide fewer resources for transportation safety overnight. the amendment leads to the loss of 650,000 vouchers for low-income families and cuts $ 500 million. and would threaten the ongoing

recovery of the housing market by grossly underfunding of the federal housing administration. the amendment would affect our domestic security by requiring the department of homeland security to lay off crucial staff we have hired over the past two years which are border patrol agents, i.c.e. investigators along the southwest border and secret service agents to respond to heightend threats against the president. the latourette amendment puts o.m.b. in charge, concedes the congressional authority in an across-the-board basis and it also takes out all the money in this c.r. for other things. i urge all members to reject the latourette amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman consumed three

minutes. mr. dicks: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: i thank you for your kind words you have gotten me votes from both. i yield two minutes to one of my partners in crime, mr. gibson of new york, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. gibgib this is about jobs, fiscal responsibility and doing what's right, $1.65 trillion in deficit, $14 trillion debt. we are on the path to bankruptcy and we have to change course. now as someone who until last year was protecting our cherished way of life in the united states airplane, i have to tell you i don't see this as a part of an issue. both parties got us into this mess and we need leadership now to get out. this is becoming the

generational issue of our time. and we need to begin to move towards the balanced budget and fiscal responsibility and everything needs to be on the table. my family took the first cut to lead by example. we are giffling back to the u.s. treasury -- we are giving back to the u.s. treasury my pension that i earned. this substitute amendment was intended to be a nonpartisan approach. cuts across the board, democratic and republican priorities treated the same in this c.r., rolling back to 2008 levels rather than eliminating programs outright in the c.r. there will be time for those kinds of investigations later on in the budget process and in committees where programs can be singled out for deeper potential cuts and long-term structural

changes. in the process of all of this, there are some technical issues with it that we regret. but the point of this substitute amendment remains the same, that this is an american issue. we both have to come together to solve this. we are going to have to get our fiscal house in order, and to do that, many steps are necessary. but among them are rolling back spending. you know, americans today are wondering whether or not we are going to do the right thing and whether or not we are going to cut that spending and whether or not our best days are in front of us. that choice is up to us and we will get it right. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house appropriations committee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. it really is a substitute amendment and it's an

across-the-board cut. this body has spent many late nights all this week debating a year-long c.r. which makes targeted spending decisions, weighinging the pros and cons of each and every program in the federal government and i think the house has done itself proud this week in that work. under an open process, each member has had the ability to weigh in and make their imprint on the bill through the consideration of literally hundreds of amendments. the embodyyment of the democratic ideal. adoption of this substitute proposal, however, would wipe everything you have done this whole week. every amendment would be gone, every calculated decision would be forgotten. instead the amendment would replace our hard fought spending

decisions by taking the easy way out, making no real decisions at all, punting the ball to o.m.b. and the bureaucrats instead of making the decisions our electorate elected us to make sm the across-the-board nature of the amendments' cuts provides no opportunity for discretion. it pun issues or rewards without regard to merit. for example, under this amendment, the f.b.i.'s operations would be cut by $1.5 combillion, a reduction of that mag -- billion, a reduction of that magnitude would result in layoff of thousands of agents to hinder our ability to investigate crimes sm the amendment fails to include the $33 billion in d.o.d. emergency funding for troops overseas, which was passed separately last year. the department of homeland security would be cut an

additional $1 billion below h.r. 1, forcing the reduction of border patrol agents, i.c.e. agents and active duty coast gaurled personnel. while activities are important to our national security would be unduly cut, other wasteful programs as well as programs that puts a stranglehold on our economy are rewarded simply because they exist, the census bureau would continue to receive funding at the fiscal 2010 level even though their needs are reduced in fiscal 2011 giving census bureau $4.5 billion slush fund with no reason for having it. . while h.r. one climates the program funds, this amendment would provide the e.p.a. with ample funding to continue on

their regulatory regime. some may feel proportionately distributing cuts will distribute the sacrifices, they couldn't be more wrong. instead the amendment writes a check and lets the administration fund their priorities, while the congress sits on the sideline leaving the american people saddled with the results. congress has a responsibility to make tough choices and provide oversight of each department and each program through the power of the purse. the amendment before us abdicates that responsibility. i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: i thank the distinguished gentleman for his remarks and congratulate him on his hard work this week. though i would note the amendment was in order during

the reading of the table of contents and as a committee we didn't offer it then and could have been home at tuesday at 2:00 in the middle of the afternoon. i yield a minute to mr. dent of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: i want to thank the gentleman for their amendment. and i think it's important we have this discussion. the intent of this amendment is to help restore funding to programs that have been zeroed out and better balance these cuts. ordinarily i agree with the chairman and mr. latourette we would not want to engage in across-the-board cuts but given where we are in the fiscal year process, it's best to better balance these cuts in a way i think is a bit more equitable and use the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process for oversight to make further revisions and then discuss zeroing out or in a more discriminating manner, deal with those programs that should

be cut even more substantially. but this amendment will help restore programs like liheap and csgb, programs that have been substantially reduced and others that have been zeroed out and i believe it's important we adopt the amendment and i commend mr. latourette and it protects our folks in uniform. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i reserve. i hold my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: it's my pleasure to yield to a new member of the house, the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: i want to thank mr. latourette for his work and also the chairman and the appropriations process and the leadership for being able to come out and have an open discussion for what's going on. i do think that what the spirit of this amendment was supposed to do was -- so we're not necessarily picking winners and losers, that we aren't zeroing out programs.

and as much as i do not like the idea of across-the-board cuts, i do think that the american public right now is looking at how can we tighten our belt? the american people have tightened their belt, the american business tightened their belt and the government should be no different. everything has to be on the table. the department of defense has to be on the table. we have to rein in every single department. we know we have to do that without putting people in harm's way. this technical problem the amendment has just surfaced is certainly going to be problematic. but the spirit and intent of this amendment was to make sure that we are preserving some of what i think many on the other side would consider to be very important programs. what many independents in our nation would consider to be important programs and important to them. so we want to let the 2012 appropriations process go through the appropriate channels and make sure we make our cuts at that point in time. so i would just urge my colleagues to keep that in mind as we move forward and i yield

back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: i'm watching mr. dicks' hand signals. mr. chairman, it's my pleasure to yield one minute to another fine member of illinois, mrs. biggert. one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, we've been -- we're now six months into our fiscal year, and we have not been able to pass a dozen or more individual appropriations bills in the middle of the fiscal year, so we really -- and we inherited a spending regime. but we have a mandate from the american people to cut spending. we must do it equityably, fairly, and quickly. and i think that mr. latourette has come up with an amendment that is a really fair way to do this, don't pick winners and

losers, and don't do this without having the proper hearings and oversight. by reducing our discretionary programs at the same rate across the board we don't risk alienating future priorities or vulnerable constituencies that may receive funding at risk of being terminated. this whole body i think has done a great job in looking at all of this. and i think we'll come out with something we can be proud of. i would say that the chairman has done -- the chairman of the appropriations has done a great job. this is another way to do this. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. who yields time? mr. latourette: may i ask how much time i have left, mr. chairman? the chair: both the gentleman from ohio and the gentleman from washington have eight minutes remaining. mr. latourette: which really is three minutes remaining. if it's all right, i'd like to yield one minute and notify the

distinguished ranking member i'll take the last two minutes and close. to mr. bass, the oldest freshman, the oldest returning freshman, a freshman in 1995 and again in 2011. mr. bass, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for one minute. mr. bass: i thank the gentleman from ohio for such a wonderful introduction and i want to thank the members of the appropriations committee for all their hard work. cutting programs to zero in the middle of the fiscal year may be good legislative policy but it isn't all that practical. we need to address the future size and scope of government in the normal regular order of the appropriations process. what this amendment that mr. latourette has offered does is make us meet our spending reduction goals but do it in a way that is simple and is fair and is effective and is practical. i support the latourette amendment because i think it is the vehicle that will actually do what we want to do, which is

to cut spending now and then get on with the regular appropriations process where we can give these agencies the kind of oversight they need so we make the right decisions. so i urge support and adoption of the latourette amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. mr. latourette: i would notify the speaker that i'm the last speaker and will consume the last two minutes. i'm the last speaker on the latourette amendment. mr. dicks: we have the right to close, correct? mr. latourette: correct. are you the last speaker? mr. dicks: no, i'm not the last speaker. mr. latourette: i'd like to reserve until your last speaker. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lewis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: i appreciate my colleague yielding me this time. it has been suggested by more than one person, not just today but just a moment ago, also,

that we are headed towards a cliff in terms of our financial circumstances. it could take our country to bankruptcy and create a circumstance from which we perhaps would never be able to come back. to suggest that this substitute makes sense really baffles me. i've been told by the speaker that the gentleman from ohio is a very thoughtful member and has contributed a great deal to our committee. which he has, but across the board cutting in an effort to make sense out of our spending process makes no sense at all. and indeed, we are elected to look at the whole mix, and indeed to pick winners and losers, decide what programs should be cut significantly, and decide which ones should be eliminated, indeed. that's a part of our work. and in this institute, essentially we're taking all the work we've done the last several days and kicking it out

the door. these efforts at amendments was not worth any time at all. we shouldn't have been here these last several days. indeed, if this amendment is successful, just one thing that it does is bothersome to me but illustrates the point. this amendment would provide $1 billion below the c.r. -- our c.r. in terms of homeland security. that is, 2.6% lower in funding for those people who are protecting the border. to suggest we can aeliminate a thousand of those people who are on the border by way of this substitute is ludicrous in my judgment. indeed, it is our responsibility to select winners and losers. and this substitute is a waste of our time if we're serious about doing something about changing the direction of our country. so i would strongly oppose this institute. -- this substitute. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: i thank you,

mr. chairman. i have two minutes, is that right? the chair: the gentleman has seven minutes remaining. mr. la had turret: i'm going to -- mr. latourette: i'm not going to waste your time but i've sat through a lot of interesting debate in the last three or four days and my time has been wasted plenty with silly things like not wanting to pay for the repairs at the white house but we went through that exercise today. this was a serious attempt to talk about shared sacrifice. and the belief that in some parts of the country some programs are more popular than others. so our belief was if we're going to have shared sacrifice, everybody should be in the game. we shouldn't pick programs that the republicans like and keep them and programs that the democrats like and be done with them. now, i do want to take one second to talk about this defense number because i drafted this thing, and i'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but i got to tell you, it was never our intent not to carry over the emergency supplemental, the information that we had is that the

language we have included in the substitute did in fact, by indicating that we were not dealing with emergency spending and referencing section 423 of the supplemental, accomplished that purpose, i'm told by much brighter people than i that we didn't do that. so i apologize for that drafting error. but having said that, let me tell you, i'm not going to apologize for taking 20 minutes out of 80 hours or whatever we had here to talk about the vision of some people on our side that we don't think that this bill represents shared sacrifice. in cleveland, ohio, people listen to the radio and some of them like to listen to npr. we don't think that should be zeroed out. in cleveland, ohio, some people value the arts and we don't think there should be a tremendous cut to the national endowment for the arts. in cleveland, ohio, we build our communities with the community development block grant and we don't think it should get a 66% cut. we happen to value as americans the food for peace program which not only feeds hungry people all across the world,

but is really the last bastion, we're going to talk about jobs around here, the "merchant mariner" it's one of that merchant mariner's lifelines for employment. i don't make any apologies for taking 20 minutes out of your busy lives to talk about this vision and why some of us wish that both sides would get together, not have the sacred cows that keep us from reaching a conclusion on this thing, and work this thing out. i guess i'm apologizing for being the last person, but in light of the defense number, i don't want to put my young lambs at risk of some stupid political ad that they sponsored something that cut $33 billion from the defense department of this great country and therefore, mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to withdraw the amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed and in the following order, amendment number 273 by mr. king of iowa, amendment number 154 by mr. burgess of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote, as for the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 273 printed in the congressional record and offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 273, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. fs any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] .

. 4:00 a.m. .

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 189, the noes are 2 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are the yeas are 189, the noes are 233. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment 154 presented in the congressional record and offered by mr. burnles on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes traflede by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 154

printed in the congressional record offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: 235, the nays are 187. the amendment is adopted. the cheat will be in order. -- the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order.

the clerk will read the last two lines of the bill. the clerk: this act may be cited as the full year continuing appropriations act 2011. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i movehe committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass. the chair: the question is on the moon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the committee rises.

the chair: madam speaker? the committee on the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1 and pursuant to house resolution 92 i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1, and pursuant to house resolution 92 reports the bill back to the houseith sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. >> madam speaker -- the clerk: for the department of defense and other departments and agencies for the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk? the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. heinrich would like introductions reported back to the house forth with the following amendment. at the end of title 8 of division b insert the following, section, the aunts otherwise provided by this act shall revise by reducing the amount made available for department of education, departmental management, program administration and increasing the amount made available for department of education, student financial

assistance, and the amount made available under such heading of subpart 1 of part a of title 4 of the entire education act of 1965 by $39 billion. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogs: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for five minutes. mr.einrich: madam speaker, americans need jobs. up until now, republicans have ignored this problem and now they're making it worse. our nation's large and unsustainable budget deficit is staring us in the face. but it's at critical moments like this that we must approach our nation's greatest challenges with responsility and prudence. the approach we take must focus on responsible cuts, which will have a lasting impact on the deficit. not bitrary short-term cuts

to programs that are needed to prepare the next generation of american workers and taxpayers. consider the effects of the bill before us on specialist john cutabillo from my home state ofico. he served in the army for six years. he was deployed to iraq twice during his service. he then enlisted with the national guard and served an additional tour in iraq. after returning to new mexico, he decided he wanted to go back to school and earn his degree in i.t. the pell grant scholarships and g.i. benefits he received have allowed him to enroll in an associates program at a vocational school. when he graduates, he hopes to find an i.t. job at kirkland air force base. the republican bill would cut his pell grant scholarship. this cut in his financial aid

means he'll have to take fewer courses this year and graduate later. , try to take a loan he can't afford or drop out of school. special ust cutabillo is not alone. it's students who rely on college aid from the pell grant program drop out of school, america runs the risk of dropping out of the first place in the world economy. this motion to recommit would be a down payment to restore specialist cutabillo's future. simply put, this motion to recommit would transfer funds from the department of education administration to fund pell grant scholarships at the current level. my amendment to restore these scholarships won't add a penny to the deficit. in fact, this m.t.r. is paid for by -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend? the house is not in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. mr. heinrich: this m.p.r. is

paid for by cutting salaries and expenses at the department of education and takes them back to fiscal year 2008 levels . so this motion to recommit calls on the house to make a choice, do we want responsible, measured spending cuts or reckless ones? do we want cuts to come at the expense of middle class america or corporate special interests? do we want a weaker america that cuts education, or a stronger america that competes and wins in the global economy? . on whose side are we on? we are on the side of american jobs and on the side of american education. on the side of working families and their sons and daughters. i urge my colleagues to vote and

i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: it's time to vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraw his point of order? mr. rogers: withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws. does anybody rise in opposition to the motion? without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor vote aye -- those in favor say aye.

-- those in favor say aye. please vote no. the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited bibited by the u.s.

e chair: on this vote the yeas are 186, the nays are 238. the motion is not adopted. for what purpose does the

gentleman from washington rise? >> mad speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i want to first of all thank the entire staff of the house appropriations committee for the fantastic work they have done. no one better exemplifies those qualities than mr. john blazey. one of the best moves we made was to steal him away from the senate budget committee. next week blazey will end his 20-year career with the committee where he worked on five different zpheet -- subcommittees and holds the distinction to have been named the staff director at the you thinkest age. his product of substance is matched only by his style and party. blazey and his elf costume will be missed. i yield back my time. >> will the gentleman yield

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> let me yield. mr. rogers: let me associate my remarks with that of my friend. i wish him best wishes to the future. for allhe rest of you, i think yove done yourses proud this wk. i think e house distinguished itself and i thank you, especially this terrific staff that made all of this happen. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on passage of the bill. the yeas and nays are ordered. meers will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235, the na are 189. the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 1928-a and the order of the house on january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following member of the house to the united states group of the nato paiamentary assembly. mr. davis scott of georgia in lieu of representative austin scott of georgia. the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 4-b of the house

resolution 5, 111th congress, i am writing to appoint the following members to the house democracy partnership, the honorable susan davis of california in lieu of the honorable donald payne of new jersey. the honorable gwen moore of wisconsin in lieu of the horable alison schwartz of pennsylvania. thank you for your attention of this appointment. signed sincerely nancy pelosi, house democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal communication. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. mccollum of minnesota for today and the balance of the week and mr. peters of michigan for today after 8:00 p.m. and mr. quayle of arizona for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: wiout objection, requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> for the purpose of adjournment. the speaker pro tempore: does

the gentleman have a motion? >> i do. madam speaker, pursuant to house concuent resolution 17, 1123th congress, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, pursuant to house concurrent resolution 17, 112th congress, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. monday, february 28, 2011.

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 wl 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 der of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed will each control five minus. 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 recognis 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 at 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 itthe 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 gentledy. 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. 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 t 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 theill, 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, argetting back insurance for their parents. that would stop the department of labor and healtand 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 thismendment. it will defu 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, whh 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 dolls 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 evything 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: theentlelady 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 thousan 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 natn'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 rightsf 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 air: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the ntleman 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,nd 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 elimines, 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 friendsalk about listening to the american citizens, the associated press pointed out in a poll last month that the overwhelm magazine jort oppose e 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 ea 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 om 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 ase 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 th 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 theand 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 ylds 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 thbusiness 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 throu 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 chairm, and the power and the authority to determine those rules and least to make a strong remmendation to this body. i would urge that wenderstand 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 implentation of obamacare because we might think somehow that a rule which trumps the very constitution itself. i yield back. the chair: is the 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 contr 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 appropriatio 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. ng: 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: amement number 267, printed in theongressional record, offered by mr. king of iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to the order of the hse 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 isan 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 is 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 gs 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 rrower 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 obamaca. i made my arguments, mr. chairman, onhat. 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 a 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 chr: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i would be pleased to yield a minut and a half to the doctor from louisiana, mr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana frequented for how mu time,ir? 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 n 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 covage. 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 compies, but, yes, we'll also be putting it into the hands of the government w that i yield back. e 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 y before that, wead 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 thhistory 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, e 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: t gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady. mr. chairman, i rise in position 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 poost 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 constituts 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 federaloverty line. my rural hospitals, mr. chairman, know that when patients walk into the emergency rooms the hospitals will be paid for their care and they will not continue to face bankruptcy. . 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 begino address that problem. get them in earlier. get them treatment. less expensive. don't pass the costs on to other americans. rsonal responsibility. we outlawed the worst abuses of the insurance industry, canceling your policy when you get sick, even though you have been paying the premi. 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 healthnsurance. 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 upn one big stack. we listened to dr. burgess about all the things that took

place to represent this ll in one place oar another, including the promise of an executive order designed to trumthe 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 suppo 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 congresso 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 bil 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 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 intoffect. they want you to fix it, not political theater. it doesn't help them in the emergency room or the doctor's offi. 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 prescption 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 doughnutole. 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 gentledy 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 onhe american public. and it would turn back to the insurance industry their opportunity to deny benefits, to deny coverage. it's hard to underand 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 amicans 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 removehe 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 jery 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 crte 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 fered 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. rsuant 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 chai the gentleman from new yorkeserves 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 pleaseto 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 tryg 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 instution, the gentleman from iowa said this is the greatest threat to personal liberty ihistory. 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 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 fron 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 wishhat 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 aut death panels. we would be talking about the idea of extending health care benefits to all members of the american family, including the 51 milli 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 thathe 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. well get health care. we get the very best. what about jennifer and lisa and james and grandma and grandpa and the johnso and baby joshua? weepresent them, too. they get what they deserve -- they deservehat 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 peoe 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 cha, i would be pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota,rs. 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 th liberals in this chamber who spent literally trillions ofollars out of the public treasury only to see two million jobs lost in t private sector because of their failed policies on job creation. obamacare will likely create the

largest government bureaucracy in the history of our country. fied with even more government jobs than any other agency. there's one thing that obamacare will likely do very, verywell 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 u 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 philosophynd 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 ly 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 hav come before this body would increase the deficit. increase it. the first one by $5.5 billion over the next several yrs. 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 bac 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 page 359, line 22. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: i have an amendment

at the desk. 575. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 575, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. rehberg of montana. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i rise to make a point of order on the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady will state her point. ms. delauro: i make a point of order against the rehberg amendment because it violates clause 3-j-3 of house resolution 5 by proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. according to a cost estimate received from the congressional budget office of the rehberg amendment, the rehberg amendment would increase net budget authority in the bill by $2 billion in fiscal year 2012 and a total of $5.5 billion over 10 years. let me repeat that. that is adding $5.5 billion to

the deficit. and i have in my hand here the c.b.o. estimate of the budgetary effect of amendment 575 to h.r. 1. c.b.o.'s document. the house rules package adopted at the beginning of this congress in house resolution 5 includes the following rule in section 3-j-3. i quote. it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. end quote. according to c.b.o. estimates, the rehberg amendment does in fact produce a net increase in budget authority and is therefore not in order. the majority have raised a point of order on all other amendments that violate this rule in section 3-j-3 because they increase net budget authority. yet on this amendment by mr. rehberg that is not the case.

it would seem that on the question of health care the majority is not abiding by its own rules to reduce the deficit. i ask a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. rehberg: mr. chair, i wish to be heard on the point of order. the chair: the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rehberg: i have been advised by the chairman of the committee of budget that my amendment complies with all applicable rules of the house. the point of order that my amendment violates clause 10 of rule 21 known as the cut-go rule, is inapplicable in this case. the cut-go rule does provide a point of order against amendments to appropriations bills that cause an increase in mandatory spending over the five-year scoring window. however, that rule contains an important exception. the point of order applies only to provision that is are modifications to -- provisions that are modifications to substantive law. my amendment does not constitute a modification. it is a temporary provision

limiting use of funds in this act for the implementation of a law in a particular fiscal year. as the chairman of the committee on budget stated, my amendment does not make a modification to substantive law after the year for which the bill makes appropriations. accordingly, the prohibition contained in clause 10 of rule 21 does not apply to my amendment and the point of order should be overruled. i respectfully ask the chair for a ruling. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: the gentlelady from connecticut's point of order should be sustained and the chairman's arguments are deficient in two respects. first, he notes that the chairman of the budget committee's opinion is that the point of order should not be sustained. although i realize that the chairman of the budget committee's opinion by custom is given some sort of special gravity on these kind of questions, with all due respect

the chair is the chair, the chair is the authority here and the chair's responsibility is to follow the rules of the house which very clearly state that a piece of legislation has a net increase in budget authority, it's out of order under these circumstances. . secondly the chairman makes an argument that this is not a change in substantive law. one first would wonder why it's then being offered, but secondly, it seems to me that if agents of the executive branch have a responsibility and that responsibility includes discretion as to how to carry out a certain law, prohibiting them from carrying out that responsibility and limiting their discretion is in fact a significant change in substantive law on. law. on those grounds i would urge that the point of order be sustained. the chair: any other member wish to be heard on the point of order?

the gentleman from new jersey first. for what purpose does do you rise? -- for what purpose do you rise? you're recognized. >> mr. chairman, i find it incredible what i'm hearing on the other side of the aisle here because, you know, week of gone through several weeks where the rules have been changed so that the budget committee chairman does whatever he pleases and has the authority almost like equal to the rest of the house, the way the republicans have given him this authority. mr. pallone: sort of like a one-man dictatorship. i'm not sure i'm particularly interested in his opinion on this one. but beyond that and i'll follow up on my colleague from nnl, when you talk about substantive changes from the law, the whole purpose of this amendment is to basically gut the health care reform and make sure that it never takes place. and if it were to become law, if it were to be adopted, that is exactly what would happen. this has a mainly substantive impact. beyond that, what we're highlighting here is the fact

that here we have the republicans saying that they're trying to save money or cut spending when in reality what they're doing with this seamed increasing the deficit -- with this amendment is increasing the deficit and making it more difficult to create jobs. so i don't see how we could ever argue, frankly, that this amendment is in order. it clearly increases the deficit. it clearly increases the budget authority. it will kill the health care reform. and that's its purpose. so i would ask that the chairman rule that this is certainly out of order. the chair: anyone else wish to be heard on the rule? the gentlelady from knk. ms. delauro: yes, mr. chairman, i'd like to make a comment on the point of order. the chairman has argued, with all due respect to the chairman, that the amendment does not violate clause 10 of rule 21. but that is not the point of order that i raised. the point of order was section 3-j-3 of h.res. 5 and i'll

repeat what that says. it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to the general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. it clearly proposes an increase and we have a documentation from c.b.o.. so i'm asking that this amendment be ruled out of order. the chair: thank you. the lady yields back. is there anyone who wishes to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: it doesn't matter which clause they want to draw from. the chairman said there is no impact. my amendment scores it a savings of $100 million in the current fiscal year. that's substantive savings and i again ask for a ruling. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. any other discussion to the point of order?

if not, the gentlewoman from connecticut makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. the chair has been per swacively guided by an estimate from the chair of the committee budget that the amendment does not propose a net increase in budget authority in fiscal year 2011. the relevant fiscal year for this bill. the point of order is overruled. pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from montana, mr. rehberg, and a member opposed will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask for as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rehberg: mr. chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward.

this amendment denies any funding provided by this bill to be used by the department of -- or agency funded through the labor h.h.s. title of the bill to support obamacare. it will create a firewall so that funds from this bill cannot be used for that purpose. obamacare included mandatory funding for several provisions normally funded through the discretionary appropriations. for example, $1 billion implementation fund. so unfortunately resources will be available to health and human services. this amendment can slow but not completely stop the process. i've tried everything within my power to write an amendment that would completely defund implementation, yet with stand a point of order. this is the best i can do today. i liken the situation with this bill to trying to drive a car to the moon. a car is the wrong vehicle for that purpose. but a car can take us on first leg of the trip. it can get us to the launching pad and i will continue to do everything i can to finish the

journey. my goal and the goal of the majority of americans is to repeal the new health care law. until then, my objective is to defund it entirely and stop its implementation. it's impossible at this time to describe the many reasons that justify defending or defunding and repeal. let me begin with my belief that the law is unconstitutional. it runs contrary to our most fundamental concepts of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. it's a law designed by those who wish to control every health care decision made by health care providers and patients, by every employer and employee, by every family and individual. it will control every aspect of 1/6 of our economy. this unaffordable program will cost $2.6 trillion in the first 10 years. if fully implemented. 90% of that cost is for medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies.

roughly half of the federal government's costs will be paid through new taxes, penalties and fees on individuals and businesses. the other half is covered by cuts in medicare benefits. the tax increases and regulatory burdens will be a significant drag on economic growth and job creation and other costs to states, businesses and individuals are not included in the $2.6 trillion figure. this is a job killer, how fool hardy. to create a new entitlement program when we cannot pay for the ones we already have and cannot meet our current operating expenses, without borrowing beyond our ability to repay. this is madness. the structure of this bill was built on a foundation of multiple mandates. the individual mandates that requires people to purchase insurance whether they want to or not. mandates on states to create and operate insurance exchanges and to expand medicaid dramatically. man cates on employers to provide -- mandates on employers to provide insurance or be penalized. mandates regarding the precise

terms of insurance policies that everyone ultimately must purchase and on and on. our forefathers would be appalled to see the power over our health and lives that we are surrendering to government. they had firsthand experience with unif thered government control in the careful -- in the unfettered government control. we've learned nothing from them. never has there been such a complete transfer of power to our government with such blind faith and hope that government will get it right. when our experience in every other context is so totally to the contrary. this is an experiment, a huge gamble imposed on us by those who did not read the legislation or fully understand its consequences. we're already catching glimpses of how government power will be exercised. large corporations and unions have been granted waivers for mandates they cannot meet. large corporations with armies of lawyers and unions who hold a

special place in the hearts, minds and political campaigns of those who enacted this bill. will government be so accommodating to you? there are problems with the existing health care system but this law only makes matters worse. the law must be repealed so it can be replaced with intellectual cremental measures to improve rather than transform our current health care system. in the meantime, implementation must be stopped. there's a second reason to defund implementation. the law's individual mandate has been declared unconstitutional by two federal judges. judge roger vincent has written a powerful opinion that strikes down the entire law. the administration and congress are on notice of the substantial risk that the supreme court will uphold vincent's decision. if that occurs after a year of more litigation, billions of dollars spent by the federal government to imple metropolitan the law and by states -- implement the law and by state,

businesses and individuals to comply with the law will have been completely wasted. thrown away. in light of the crisis created by our ballooning debt and anemic economy, it's fiscally irresponsible to go forward with implementation until the court challenge is finally resolved. for these reasons i urge you to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? ms. delauro: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. she will control 30 minutes. ms. delauro: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield myself five minutes. the american people want us to work together to address their top priorities, creating jobs, turning the economy around and reducing the deficit. the republican majority told the american people, vote for me, that's what we are going to do. this is a classic case of bait and switch. their first order of business was to repeal health care

reform. the results of which would add to unemployment, add to the deficit and delay the economic recovery. and today by denying funds for the implementation of health care they are at it again. this amendment would take away the consumer protections of the affordable care act, put the insurance companies back in charge, a further demonstration of the majority's special interest priorities and their hypocrisy on job creation and deficit reduction. repealing health care will destroy jobs in the health professions, it will slow growth by 250,000 to 400,000 jobs in a year. it will increase medical spending and add nearly $2,000 to the average family insurance premium. and according to c.b.o., repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years and $1 trillion in the second 10 years. and let me repeat that, this amendment adds billions and ultimately trillions of dollars

to the deficit. and it starts next year with $2.2 billion and my colleague will say that the rest of this year that that isn't the case. one needs to just look at what the c.b.o. said overall on the $5.5 billion in deficit that this would create. this is not what they promised the american people. this amendment will allow insurers to charge women 48% more than men for exactly the same coverage. it allows insurance companies to once again discriminate against americans with pre-existing conditions. even children with pre-existing conditions. women may again be denied coverage because they survived breast cancer. or because they were a victim of domestic violence or because they had a c-section. it will deny up to four million small businesses, $40 billion in tax credits. this amendment will increase drug costs for seniors. it will take away the 50% discount on brand name drugs. for those who have found

themselves in the doughnut hole. it will increase also seniors' health care costs, making life-saving preventive services like mammograms, could lonoscopies and diabetes screenings more expensive. this amendment will cost money and it will cost lives. in connecticut 191,000 children with pre-existing conditions benefit from the health care reform law. more than 540,000 seniors with medicare coverage no longer have out-of-pocket expenses for recommended preventive services and up to 15,400 small businesses in my district alone will benefit from these tax credits. if this amendment passes, what will happen to children with pre-existing conditions, to seniors in the doughnut hole, to small business owners trying to help their employees find quality health insurance? i urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. .

the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as was so eloquently put forward by mr. rehberg, the chairman of the subcommittee on health and human services appropriations just a moment ago, this is a temporary limiting amendment on the appropriation for implementation of the patient protection affordable care act. bait and switch, that term was used by the other side a moment ago in their argument. bait and switch. think back to where we were just a little over a year ago in this house of representatives when the democrats' version of the health care bill passed. where is that bill today? somewhere in the dust bin out in the halls outside the office of the former speaker, -- former speaker now occupies. bait and switch. what happened on christmas eve of last year of 2009? the senate passeda