we think we're going to vote for one, that would be the budget for the remainder of the year, but there are two other bills here to be voted on and i think you might be surprised at. it certainly took us by surprise. one of them, completely defunds planned parenthood. having nothing in the world to do about cutting the deficit. mr. dreier: will the gentlewoman yield? ms. slaughter: i will not. the second one takes away the health care bill. a matter of that importance is added as a correction onto this bill. what they said they'd like us to do is correct legislation that has not even been passed. that takes a lot of imagination. but what is more serious? and i believe what they have done here is add an unprecedented provision that raises serious constitutional questions. under this rule -- now, may attention here because i don't

want children to believe it. this is not the way we do things. after the house and senate have passed this bill and it comes back over to the house, the house will hold it and will not send it to the president. they will hold it themselves letting the government shut down again until the senate votes to defund planned parenthood and to kill america's health care. now, that is very similar to what we did here a few weeks ago. it may have been last week for all i can remember when you're working so hard. it was probably one of the silliest things we have done in any legislative process in the world. they really passed a bill on this floor that said we already passed a bill and sent it to you, senate. the senate took the bill up and it failed. so then the house response to that failure was, if we don't

hear from you by date certain then we're going to just say that the house bill is the law of the land. now, all of you that have been to school that the house passes the bill, the senate passes a bill. if necessary a conference committee recognize sides of the aisle the two bills, makes them the same, and it requires the president of the united states' signature. but not in this house. you can believe 10 impossible things before breakfast here easily because we do it every day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume, and i'd like to engage in a discussion with my distinguished ranking member if she would like on the issue that she just discussed. i guess we won't be engaging in a discussion, madam speaker, on these -- mr. polis: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: yeah. mr. polis: i think what the gentlelady said is that the senate will have to vote on and not that they had to pass it.

mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. i had -- there are several things i'd like to address. first, the gentlewoman's time has expired began by saying that never -- first the gentlewoman began by saying that never before we had things come forward in that matter. that is wrong. time and time again under both political parties we've seen the rules committee report out measures that do in fact cover multiple issues. and so this is not unprecedented, as the gentlewoman has just said. second, i think it's very important for us to clarify the fact that what we are voting on is an agreement that is supported by the president of the united states and the majority leader of the united states senate. and part of that agreement is that the senate will not vote to defund planned parenthood or vote to actually bring an end to funding for the health care

bill, but it will consider these measures. and i think it's important, madam speaker, to make it clear. the only thing that we are doing in this rule is ensuring that that agreement is enforced. and so, madam speaker, i think that it's clear that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle are not happy with this -- with the fact that their president and the senate majority leader has negotiated this agreement. again, i don't like the agreement just like they don't like the agreement. i don't like it because i don't believe that it goes far enough, but it's very important for us to realize that this is simply a first step. it is a bold first step. as the chairman of the appropriations committee has just said, madam speaker, it's the step which in fact is the largest -- four times the largest cut we ever had in the past.

it is a cut of $40 billion. and by virtue of that agreement we are making that first step, but if you extend this out it will have cuts that total $315 billion. and as i said, we are just beginning the debate this week with this very, very important budget that will be considered in the rules committee today and tomorrow and friday on the house floor. i also have to say that one of the reasons that we're having this debate on the rule today and voting on thursday on the actual continuing resolution is that we put into place a very important change in the rules at the beginning of this congress that allows unreported measures, states that unreported measures must in fact comply with the three-deleover requirement that exists for reported -- three-day layover requirement that exists for reported measures.

as we know this measure was filed at 2:00 yesterday morning here in the house and because of that filing, to ensure that it was put online as the chairman of the appropriations committee said so that the full membership and the american people, the media have the opportunity to see this measure, we have done that and that is the reason that we are going to be holding this vote on thursday and that's the reason that we're able to have the kind of free-flowing debate that we are. madam speaker, this is an agreement that no one is happy with. but it's an agreement that we've come to in dealing with the two political parties and i'm going to urge my colleagues to support it and with that reserve the balance of my time. -- with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's a first step towards bankruptcy with its cuts. madam speaker, i'm proud to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. and i want to re-enforce the comments of the gentlelady from new york when she said that the issue of defunding planned parenthood or what your opinion is about the affordable care act really has no place in this debate. it shouldn't be tied to anything, and the fact of the matter is that they're intentionally injecting these kind of polarizing issues and obviously all of my friends on the democratic side, that's the reason why you should vote against this rule. i'm pleased that the republican leadership of the house decided that it was not in anyone's interest to shut down the government. i'm also pleased that the leadership ignored the chance of shut it down coming from the most extreme elements of their party. but i'm not pleased, madam speaker, with this so-called compromise. this bill cuts the wrong things too deeply and ignores some of

the things that could stand to be cut. the cuts target the poor and the middle class, the very people who can least afford it as we struggle to recover from the great recession. meanwhile, the very wealthy and the special interests get away scott free. student aid programs get cut. children's health care would be cut. transportation funding to repair our roads and our bridges would be cut. environmental protection would be cut. the cops program, which helps local communities stay safe, would be cut. investments in science and technology research would be cut. but the defense department, well, they get a $5 billion increase. oil companies keep their sweet, hard tax loopholes. big agriculture keeps their subsidies. that's not fair, madam speaker, and that's not right. i am all for a leaner government, but i'm not for a meaner government. i'm for balancing the budget but i'm not for balancing the budget solely on the backs of

the poor and the middle class. if you want to get to a balanced budget there needs to be some fairness in this process. and if you think that this bill is troublesome, just wait, because later this week we'll be debating the republican budget proposal for 2012, a budget that would represent the largest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich in american history. it is a budget plan that ends medicare as we know it. it is a budget plan that tells our seniors, we want you to pay more and you will get less. well, there are some things worth fighting for, madam speaker, and the protection of medicare is one of them, so i look forward to that fight, but in the meantime i urge my colleagues to reject this yet again another closed rule and i urge us to reject the underlying bill. we can do better than this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i

yield myself one minute to say first to my friend from boulder that the notion of arguing that a $40 billion cut is going to take us down the road to bankruptcy -- mr. polis: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: will be absolutely prepostruss. mr. polis: it is in the $15 billion to $20 billion according to "the wall street journal." mr. dreier: madam speaker, reclaiming my time. a $40 billion cut or a $15 billion cut, or a $15 billion cut cannot be characterized of taking us down the road to bankruptcy. we all want to cut more in spending. i mean, it's very clear. now, my friend from worcester has just made this argument about the priorities we have, madam speaker, and i yield myself an additional minute to say that i think it's important for us to look at the preamble of the united states constitution. whenever we're debating defense appropriations bills or the defense authorization bill, and i'm so happy that my friend,

mr. dicks, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and the defense appropriations subcommittee is here. i always argue that the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the united states constitution are provide for the common defense. now, with all due respect of the priorities that we have, ensuring that we do care for those who are truly in need, all of these things can be done in other levels of the government. only our federal government can deal with our nation' security. as chairman rogers said we are now by virtue of the decision that the president of the united states has made in the midst of three wars. i want to bring about spending cuts and i believe that governor haley barbour was absolutely right when he says anyone that says you can't cut defense spending has never been to the pentagon. we want to encourage defense sharing, and in fact we are focused on ensuring that we do get the best, the best bang for our buck.

and so, madam speaker, recognizing the priority of the federal government -- priority the federal government has for cuts -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i think this is the right thing for us. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i appreciate his willingness to look at defense spending. i know the gentleman from kentucky mentioned we're in three wars. perhaps part of the answer is to be in two wars or one war or perhaps we can be at peace in our lifetime. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from district of columbia, ms. eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding to me and for his work on this bill. madam speaker, the district of columbia has no vote on the rule or the bill under consideration, yet, the only controversial amendments in this bill involve only the district of columbia. the bill is remarkably clean.

there are only four out of 50 or so attachments survived. not one -- yeah, there's the district of columbia. the only controversial amendments violate the district's most basic right to self-government. one has to do with private school vouchers. only for the district of columbia. a bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about and a bill we don't want. if my -- the rules committee refused to recognize my amendment which would redirect the money to the d.c. public schools and to our own public charter schools, 40% of our children go to this alternative, it has a long waiting list, to our choice,

not the republicans' choice. the second amendment would strike a shameful -- the second -- my second amendment would strike a second writer that keeps the district from spending our own local taxpayer raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income women. local money, local choice. the majority proposed to close down the government rather than pass my amendment to allow d.c. to spend its own local funds. now, the majority wants a rule with amendments that profoundly affect only the district of columbia. i will have no vote on this floor on any part of this bill. no wonder -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i appreciate the gentleman. the majority will allow a vote on every other member -- i wonder if that's my district --

no wonder the mayor of the city council and residents have taken to civil disobedience. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, may i inquire of my friend of how many speakers he has remaining and also how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. polis: we have three speakers, possibly expecting a fourth. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. madam spea i rise that says to the operating departments of our government, see if you can get by on 95% of the money you had last year. i think that makes good sense and i commend chairman rogers and mr. dicks for making sure that pell grants, title 1, special education are fully

funded and protected and frankly salute both sides for leaving aside extraneous matters like not funding planned parenthood and not funding the health care bill. i think this is a worthy compromise, i'm glad to support it. i do want to note my grave concern with the rule and the rather ambiguous position we find ourselves in with respect to the actions of senate. about 10 days ago the majority attempted to pass a bill where the senate would never have to act. now they want to say even if the house and the senate have both acted apparently the bill doesn't become law. maybe we should have put a few more education funds in for constitutional studies here because i think this is very unwise and frankly ambiguous. so i'm going to oppose the rule on the grounds that this very novel idea of giving the clerk of the house the instructions not to enroll a bill that's been

passed by both house and senate i think is very troubling. having said that, i think that the underlying bill merits the support of both republicans and democrats and i will be voting yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from california continue to reserve? mr. dreier: madam speaker, i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: as one who voted for cutting some of president obama's spending requests last year and who has already voted three times this year to cut spending from the budget, i believe we do need to ferret out every bit of unnecessary spending, to demand greater efficiency and to seek common ground on securing our long-term financial future of our national debt. but this resolution is only a

belated companion to the deal that tied a christmas bow around another tax cut for the wealthiest few in december. it represents another unbalanced approach to achieving balance in our budget. there is no shared sacrifice here. and like that december bill, this concession literally sets up tomorrow's demand for adoption of the house republican budget, a pathway to less economic, educational and health care security. instead of asking for a dime from exxon mobil or other polluters, this deal makes severe cuts in the budget to assure us clean air and clean water. instead of asking for $1 from general electric or another of these giant corporations that won't pay their fair share of taxes this place the burden on hundreds of thousands of young americans who are trying to seek a future job in the united states. almost 1/4 of the budget is

eliminated for youth bill, a program that provides vital education in employment skills to young people. and i've seen this up close, seeing the difference that our local youth works makes, in trails constructed, in homes weatherized, in the vital employment and training skills provided with every energy efficient home that a foundation is laid for, a foundation is laid for the future of some enterprising young texan. and with another 100,000 young people at universities like texas state losing the counseling, academic instruction and tutoring -- can i have another 15 seconds mr. polis: i yield the gentleman another 15 seconds. mr. doggett: and encouragement from trio, that helps them achieve academic success. that's not balanced. fair and balanced, yes, i know it's a distorted slogan, but i think it could have real meaning for our budget. but this budget is balanced on our young people and our future. we need a budget that's fair.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: madam speaker, i am proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, a former member of the rules committee, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. america's in a very dangerous place on this budget and it's not an unsolvable problem. we can get from where we are to where we need to be and that is fiscal balance if we put everything on the table and have a balanced approach. if instead we limit our consideration to essentially 12% of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary, things like low income heating assistance, the small business administration, scholarships for our kids wanting to go to college, scientific research, if we limit our attention to that 12% of the budget, even if we cut that entire 12%, we would have trillion-dollar deficits

for as long as the eye can see. it won't work. there's a design defect here. we've aggravated it with the deal that was made to extend the tax cuts at the high end. when we were here in our special session after the last election, that's $750 billion that we have to borrow in order to pay for that's tax cuts for the top 2%. we have to put everything on the table. it has to include the pentagon, it has to include revenues, it has to include eliminating wasteful and unproductive nonjob-general reating tax -- nonjob-generating tax expenditures. has to include eliminating the ethanol subsidy, something that was promolted by the member from oklahoma, mr. sullivan. we put everything on the table, we can get from where we are to where we need to be. one thing we also cannot do is start playing budgetary hostage taking and there is looming

ahead of us the question of whether we will raise the debt ceiling or use that as a leverage point in some -- as some are suggesting. this is not a leverage point, it's a moral obligation. in the eight years in the clinton administration when he hand the keys over to the new president, mr. bush, there was a projected $5.7 trillion deficit and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. mr. dreier: then the gentleman go aed head and close and i'll do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i again want to bring it back to the hypothetical american family, small business we're talking about. here's the $1.399 trillion figure is boggling to most people. so lob off that zero and say, i'm a small business, i lost $139,000 this next year. let me tell you, is losing

$137,000 the next year a step toward solvency or a step towards bankruptcy? i would submit, madam chair, ask any small business man in america or small business woman, losing $137,000 instead of $139,000 is a step towards bankruptcy. just like that family we in the united states congress, we in this country, need to come together and make hard choices about where to find additional income, where to cut expenditures, how to get this budget out of red and into the black. that's the difference between where the democrats stand and the proposal of our friends on the other side. and another difference, a democratic president is actual -- has actually balanced a budget. that's a claim that the other side can't make for more than a generation. it's clear that the republicans are not serious about the deficit. if they were this would be a different bill.

again, this is what we're talking about. taking our nation another step down the road toward fiscal insolvency and leaving a legacy of debt for the next generation. rather than holding the line on spending, the majority is feeding the beast. and yet what do the republicans cut rather than rooting out waste at pentagon? they cut $1.6 billion from the e.p.a.'s effort to protect public health and keep our air and water safe. $950 million from community development block grants to strengthen neighborhoods and create jobs. $815 million from fema grants that help communities prepare for disasters. $10 million to keep our food safe. when you look at the winners and losers in this budget, it becomes clear what the majority party does and does not value. and they clearly do not mind leaving the next generation a legacy of deficits and debt. what we're doing in this continuing resolution is increasing the favorite government spending of the majority party, running up the deficit, continuing big tax cuts

for special interests while slashing the effort to educate our children, ensure access to health care, keep our air and water clean, oh, and while they're at it, taking away a woman's right to choose. this is where we could be by working together, democrats and republicans. this process, this rule and this bill are not examples of working together to solve our budget crisis. we can do better, we must do better to save america from bankruptcy. we must do better from sound and fury signifying nothing. we need to work together to make the cuts we need to make, to increase the revenues we need to increase and to examine our entitlement programs, to put our nation on proper fiscal footing for the next generation and remove the mounting burden of debt that faces the next generation of americans. i don't see how anyone should argue that somehow reducing again at the family level

$139,000 loss to $137,000 loss while it might be a fine thing to do, leaves that family in every bit as dangerous and precarious a fiscal situation as they were before. ask any small business man or small business woman in this country. and after passing this continuing resolution and keeping our government in business another year or just punting further down the field about making cuts we all know we need to make to balance the budget, return to a surplus and help remove the next generation of americans from the legacy of debt that is threatening to crush them. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, according to the schedule in about nine minutes the president of the united states at george washington university is scheduled to give a very important address in which he's going to talk about fiscal

responsibility, the need to bring about spending cuts and all and how to get our economy growing. i want to congratulate the president, i want to congratulate the president for coming to this position and obviously it's much different than what we've gone through so far. as i said earlier, we've had an 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, the president proposed a budget that has deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion and would exacerbate the debt. he came out a few weeks ago and proposed a freeze in spending. we know that if we'd not done what we're about to vote on here with this rule making or a vote that will take place tomorrow we would see an increase of spending of $78.5 billion, $78.5 billion more in spending if we had not taken the action that this house in a bipartisan way is about to take. but the reason i want to

congratulate the president is that i've just taken a look at the early reports of what what he's about to say in this -- of what he's about to say in this speech and he does call for us to look at the issue of entitlements, he specifically says social security, not medicare or medicaid, but he talks about social security. but i believe that is again a first step towards what i believe is absolutely essential and that is for us in a bipartisan way to tackle the issue of entitlement spending. as mr. dicks said in the rules committee yesterday, that's 2/3 of the spending. we know that entitlement spending is something that needs to be addressed and there is bipartisan recognition that we need to get our fiscal house in order. and, madam speaker, what we have before us is a measure that i don't like. i don't like it. i don't believe that it does enough to reduce the size and scope and reach of government.

i believe that we need to do more. but we have to remember that we've got to take that first step. now, last november 2 the american people sent a very loud and powerful message to washington, d.c. there are 96 newly elected members of this house, nine of them happen to be democrats, 87 of them are republicans. now, madam speaker, i think it's important for us to recognize that that's a pretty powerful message. they were saying, end the nonsense, bring an end to this dramatic expansion of government and that's exactly what we're doing with this first step. now, margaret thatcher, the great former prime minister of great britain, famously said, first you have to win the argument, then you win the vote.

i believe that we've won the argument, madam speaker, because the message has come through. the message has come through that we are in fact going to have to get our fiscal house in order if we're going to ensure the strength and the preeminence of the greatest nation the world has ever known. and so, madam speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and tomorrow we'll have a vote on the continuing resolution itself and then we will begin, tomorrow after we've had that vote, we will begin to debate the budget which is going to be far-reaching, it's going to be difficult but it is clearly the right thing for us to do and i will say again, madam speaker, that i do hope that on these issues we will be able to continue to work together in a bipartisan way to

solve our nation's problems. and with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. polis: madam speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up 219 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 219. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1217, to repeal the prevention and public health fund. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those

printed in the report on the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendments, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending

which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. house resolution 219 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of h.r. 1217 which repeals the prevention and public health fund and rescinds any unobligated funds. republicans are on the floor today to fulfill part of our pledge to america that we would cut spending and we would repeal the democrats' health care bill passed a year ago. on january 19, this house passed h.r. 2, to repeal obamacare completely. the ruling liberal democrats in the senate, however, have so far refused to consider h.r. 2, but house republicans remain

undeterred. we will repeal obamacare piece by piece if that is what it takes. because the liberal elites knew the government takeover of health care was unpopular and would likely have consequences at the ballot box, they included $105 billion in mandatory taxpayers spending in the law itself to protect their favorite programs. let me take a moment to explain the difference deep discretionary and mandatory government spending. first, it's important to remember that the federal government does not have any money of its own as it has only what it takes in taxes from hardworking americans or money that it borrows from foreign creditors and our future generations. we are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar that the federal government spends. discretionary spending is appropriated by congress annually and, therefore, subject to congressional oversight and review.

discretionary spending allows congress to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' money by not funding ineffective or duplicative programs. however, what is called mandatory spending, funds programs for people who meet certain criteria and occurs irrespective of congressional appropriations and must be spent whether we have the money or not. the most recognized mandatory spending programs are medicare, medicaid and social security, which operate on autopilot and have not been subject to congressional oversight from year to year as funds automatically stream from the treasury to anyone who qualifies, that is, meets the criteria for a particular benefit. the bill before us today, h.r. 1217, would repeal a portion of mandatory obamacare spending and eliminate a slush fund

established for health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius. this slush fund, known as the prevention and public health fund, will automatically receive $1 billion when fiscal year 2012 begins in october of this year with automatic increases every year until it reaches $2 billion annually in fiscal year 2015. however, there's a very important distinction between this funding and that for medicare and social security in that this funding does not state eligibility criteria. the liberal elites in washington think they know how to spend the taxpayers' money better than individual taxpayers and gave secretary sebelius $2 billion a year until congress acts to repeal her authority to spend without

accountability. republicans are rejecting this slush fund by considering this bill which would repeal the fund and take back any money that has not already been spent this year. the slush fund is not subject to the annual appropriations process and, therefore, would not be subject to yearly congressional oversight. the money will be made available to the secretary regardless of how she chooses to spend it and whether or not the programs being funded are actually effective. again, this is not like medicare and social security. there is -- there are no criteria for the spending of this money. it's important to point out that this bill does not cut any specific program because the slush fund is used by the secretary to increase spending above connolly appropriated levels for -- above congressionally appropriated levels. my colleagues will argue that

this will train primary care physicians to prevent obesity and to encourage healthy lifestyles. what they won't tell you is they have absolutely no idea how the money is being used because they advocated the authority of congress to an unelected bureaucrat. the simple truth is that the money is just as likely to be spent on elective abortion as it is for any other purpose. in the democrats' dissenting views from the house energy and commerce report, they say that without mandatory spending for this slush fund the programs will not be adequately funded. well, madam speaker, teas what the whole process for appropriations is all -- that's what the whole process for appropriations is all about. if they want more money it's up to them to come to justify that. however, they sang a different tune when liberal house democrats ram through a government takeover of health care in november of 2009. they created the slush fund but made it subject to the regular

appropriations process. that meant it was subject to yearly congressional oversight. but when the ruling liberal democrats in the senate sent over their health care law the slush fund had been made mandatory. the liberal elites claim they put in a safeguard because part of the section creating this slush fund states that congress has the authority to direct how this funding is spent. congress has the authority to direct, redirect, repeal or increase funning. congress can always pass a new law to change the direction of any funding stream. that's our job as legislators. the need to state explicitly that we have the authority to direct spending in the slush fund is pointless. the simple true is that we have a spending crisis in this town

in large part due to mandatory spending that operates on autopilot. instead of working to sustain our spending habits, the democrats failed to offer even a budget resolution last year or pass a single appropriations bill. the liberal elites failed to lead despite having unchecked control of all levers of power in washington. i brought a chart to help illustrate the fact that mandatory spending is out of control in washington. madam speaker, let me show you that because of mandatory spending being on autopilot by the year 2060, the mandatory spending will absorb all revenue coming into the federal government, all tax revenue coming in to the federal government. that simply is unsustainable. we cannot operate our country when we let three programs take

up all of the money that comes into the federal government. something has to be done, and yet the democrats want to add another program to this which would speed up this process. we don't need that. as washington liberals ignore the growing autopilot spending crisis, adding more unaccountable mandatory spending in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, house republicans are now working hard to protect the future for our children and grandchildren by restoring congressional oversight of spending. now, i'm sure many americans are wondering how a slush fund with a clever title would be spent and why it must be put on autopilot. let me give you an example. pitt county in my home state of north carolina, received funding from this fund to fix prices at convenient stores so that healthy foods would be less expensive and therefore supposedly more attractive to the consumer. in addition, the pitt county

health department now plans to use some of this money to use signs indicating public parks, bike leans and alternate transportation. although, i'm certainly not opposed to parks or healthy eating habits, it seems clear that the founders of this country did not intend the federal department of health and human services in washington, d.c., to use taxpayer money to subsidize granola bars or purchase signs for bike lanes or parks. the federal government has no business paying for local and community initiatives, such as these, especially when we're borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends to pay for it. the new house republican majority's ready to lead this country out of our debt crisis and it starts with voting for this bill and the underlying bill which will save taxpayers $16 billion. with that, madam speaker, i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time, and i will take such time at this time as i may require. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: obviously, this measure amends the patient prevention and public health act and repeals the provisions that establishes and appropriate funds to the prevention and public health fund. it rescinds any balance appropriated to the fund. as i listened to my friend from north carolina, two things jump out at me immediately. one is her usage and the ruling republican majority's house

members' usage of the term of the affordable health act as obamacare. i said earlier in the rules committee, i guess i could call it hastings care because i supported, as did many members of this congress who are still here and some who are not on both sides of the aisle supported health care provisions for america long before any of us knew barack obama's name. when it's used the way that it is, it's in some manner attempting to be demeaning of the president. he does not bear the soul responsibility -- sole responsibility for the affordable health care act. i would assume some of that responsibility and what i would say is he and many others in this body did not go far enough in that we did not establish

universal health care for all americans in this country. the other thing that jumps out on this particular matter, calling it a slush fund, and then allowing that it is going to be in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat. it puts us in a strange position in the house of representatives when my colleagues with the ruling majority of the house of representatives have sought and been successful to eliminate the opportunities for members of congress on both sides of the aisle to seek to have appropriations earmarked for respective undertakings in their congressional districts, rather they would eliminate those earmarks and guess what? put it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. so i find it inconsistent to make the argument on one hand

and then on the other hand say, oh, it's ok for the unelected bureaucrats to have some opportunity to spend our money. quite frankly i take umbrage with that. i think i can do a better job defining a need for a treatment plan than can an unelected bureaucrat. the burden of chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and stroke present a significant public health challenge to all of our communities and our nation as a whole. in my home state of florida over 10 million case of seven chronic diseases, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders and pull -- pulmonary conditions were reported early on in this decade at the cost of about $17.6 billion in treatment and

resulting in $68.7 billion in lost productivity and economic costs. simply put, we have a sick care system, not a health care system. tens of millions of americans are suffering from health conditions that could possibly be preventable. and this is further exacerbated by the continuing rise of health care costs. despite the fact that chronic diseases are responsible for seven out of 10 deaths among americans each year and that they account for 75% of our nation's health care spending, less than 3% of our health care spending goes to preventive health care services and health promotion. as you know, the affordable care act or the hastings care act or

the hastings and obamacare act or the hastings and obama and democratic care act created the prevention and public health fund in order to assist state and community efforts in preventing illness and promoting health. the prevention and public health fund represents an unprecedented investment of $15 billion over 10 years to help prevent disease , detect early and manage conditions before they become severe. it aims to transform the focus of our system of care from primarily treating illness to maintaining long-term wellness by leveraging the power of preventive medicine. through the community transformation grants program, for example, the fund empowers state and local governments and partners to implement community prevention interventions that

help reduce chronic disease and health care disparity. in fact, the fund is already being used in all 50 of our states and the district of columbia to prevent smoking, increase physical activity, reduce alcohol and drug abuse, increase immunizations, train the nation's public health work force, prevent the spread of hiv-aids and help control the obesity epidemic in our country. in addition the prevention and public health fund provides funding for states to help develop a health insurance exchange by 2014. footnote there, we should have had a public option. where consumers will have access to a new market of more affordable quality health coverage as well as funding for up to 400 school-based centers in order to provide a safety net and improveed access to care for

children -- improve access to care for children. since the enactment of the hastings care/obamacare/ democratic care/republicans don't care measure last year, the department of health and human services has awarded approximately $21.98 million in grants to organizations in florida alone through the prevention and public health fund to help improve wellness and prevention efforts including more than $9.3 million for community and clinical prevention, more than $3.1 million for public health infrastructure and more than $9.4 million for primary care training. if we are to reduce health care costs we must improve the health of all americans. investing in proven preventive measures can significantly reduce the risk of developing

these diseases and improving people's lives and saving money. according to a report from trust for america's health entitled prevention for a healthier america, investing just $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increase physical activity, improve nutrition and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save our nation more than $16 billion annually within five years. this is the equivalent to and potentially greater than the amount as estimated by the nonpartisan congressional budget office by which h.r. 1217 reduces direct spending over a 10-year period. furthermore, a public opinion survey by trust for america

found that 71% of americans favor an increaseed investment in disease prevention -- an increased investment in disease prevention. it is also supported by nearly 600 national organizations including the american diabetes association, the american heart association, the american lung association, families u.s.a. and the aids institute. h.r. 1217 on the other hand is nothing more than an attack on affordable health insurance, primary care and safety net care for children. this bill is yet another feeble attempt by the ruling majority republicans to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately destroy the hastings care/obamacare/ democratic care/republicans don't care bill one piece at a

time. including those programs that have already been funded and are helping millions of middle class, elderly and working poor americans and their families as we speak. the misinformation that pervades the health care debate in this country never ceases to amaze me at all. my friends on the other side of the aisle, the ruling republican majority, would have the american people believe that the prevention and health fund is a slush fund for the secretary of health and human services to spend money freely without congressional oversight. this is simply not true. a specific funding amount is allocated for prevention efforts through the fund each year during the fiscal period. $500 million in 2010, $750 million in 2011, $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 and so on, up to $2 billion beginning in 2015.

this gives the secretary, whomever she or he may be, under republicans or democrats, the flexibility and health care providers the funding certainty that the need to implement prevention and public health interventions that help americans make healthier decisions for themselves and their families. the prevention and public health fund is the first and only federal program with dedicated ongoing resources specifically designed to improve the public's health. it represents our commitment to preventing illness and investing in our nation's long-term physical and fiscal health. let me say this, madam speaker, every day that i awaken i start my day by trying -- trying to figure, what can do i to follow the scripture of mandate to help the least of us? i'm curious whether my friends

in the ruling majority have the same theory. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to just point out one small thing to my colleague from florida. yes, i do begin every day wondering how i can make life better for other people. but i want to say that there is no accountability whatsoever in this provision of the bill and we want accountability for every penny of money that we are spending on behalf of american taxpayers. i would now like to recognize for such time as she may consume congresswoman ellmers from the great state of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for -- mrs. ellmers: thank you to my learned colleague from north carolina and thank you, madam speaker.

i rise today to support of the rule and the 2011 budget agreement that we have passed. we've already heard some of the aspects that this budget agreement addresses and i'm going to address some additional aspects. i am very pleased to see this house once again value the culture of life. the f.y. 2011 budget now reinstates the d.c. hyde amendment to make sure that no congressionally appropriated funds, federal or local, are used to pay for elective abortions. according to the susan b. anthony list, congress will save the lives of an estimated 1,000 unborn children when it votes to reinstore this amendment. banning the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortions in the district of columbia. it adjusts the funding from $55 million to $40 million, it adjusts international population

control, family planning funding from $648 million to $575 million. it adjusts title 10 domestic family plang funding from $300 million which is a cut of $17 million. this budget also calls for an up or down vote in both the house and the senate, madam speaker, on the defunding of planned parenthood. while the fight is certainly not over we are making great strides in the ongoing effort to not only get our country on a strong fiscal footing but honor the value of lives born and unborn. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: would you please give me the amount of time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: yes. the gentleman from florida has 18 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from north carolina has 18 minutes

remaining as well. mr. hastings: thank you very much, madam speaker. at this time i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from illinois, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker, and i want to thank the gentleman from florida for yielding. you know, i was thinking we are approaching mother's day and thought of my mother. when it came to budgeting and appropriating money she did not always have a great deal to work with. but she was a great budget analyst, she was an absolute wizard at crunching numbers and she was an expert on knowing what worked and what did not. as a matter of fact, she often told us that an ounce of prevention was worth much more than a pound of cure. so she knew when it came to health care, prevention measures are worth much more than their weight in gold. she knew that it would be pennywise and pound foolish to

cut our re-- or reduce the meager resources which we expend toward health education, health awareness, health promotion and health screening. and if we don't think public health activities work, look for some cigarette smoke or cigar smoke in these chambers. look at the difference in the cost of treating lung cancer and the liver versus preventing these diseases from occurring. . in illinois we have a very proactive public health program. we don't want to see it reduced, diminished, or eliminated. yes, we do need to cut spending, and we are cutting spending. but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. let's not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. let's vote down this rule and

let's vote down h.r. 1217. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are here today to save taxpayers money by cutting wasteful government spending. the program we are cutting out we cannot be sure does anything for preventive health care because it's designated that, but there's no idea where the money is going to be spent. republicans certainly want to see americans do a better job of preventing disease and making their health care better. but what we fear is that this money may be used for elective abortions. so we are also here today to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

this slush fund directs the secretary of health and human services to invest in prevention and primary care by funding programs and initiatives under the public health services act. title 10 of the public health services act provides funding for the abortion industry. including organizations like planned parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country. mr. speaker, my colleagues across the aisle and the liberals in washington have really outdone themselves to ensure their favorite constituencies are provided for in their new health care law. this slush fund is yet another democrat trick to use taxpayer money to subsidize elective abortion. despite what they may have you believe, supporters of taxpayer funded elected abortion cannot honestly claim this money cannot be used for elective abortion under title 10. the liberal democrat elites

relinquished all authority over the slush fund to secretary sebelius. for far too long abortion providers have used title 10 money to subsidize their operating costs and thereby subsidize elective abortion. we have heard a lot of misinformation being circulated in washington this week about planned parenthood, the largest elective abortion provider in the country. as i pointed out in the rules committee last night, one of my colleagues across the aisle said that republicans were, quote, here to kill women and compared us to nazis. liberal democrats maintain that women will lose access to preventive care if the government stops funding for the abortion industry. what they are not telling you is that planned parenthood has almost $1 billion in net assets and reported $737 million in revenues for its most recent filing year. any big abortion organization

making $737 million a year should be able to function without taxpayer subsidies, mr. speaker. this is not about women's health or access to preventive care. through federal and state medicaid programs, low-income women have access to family planning and preventive health services at hospitals, doctor's offices, and community health centers nationwide. another planned -- claim planned parenthood makes is 97% of the three million patients they served in fiscal 2008 received preventive care services and only 3% received abortions. these supporters of taxpayer funded abortions ought to check their math. according to their own fact sheet for march, 2011, planned parenthood clinics performed 332,278 abortions in fiscal year 2008.

if they saw three million patients and performed 332,278 abortions, that means at least 11% of the services provided were abortions. if they cannot be trusted regarding this simple math, what else are they hiding from the american people, mr. speaker? another astounding statistic i would like to share is that 97.6% of pregnant women who receive services at a planned parenthood clinic received abortions. only 2.4% of pregnant women received only prenatal or adoption referral services at planned parenthood. elective abortion is not health care, mr. speaker. this is not about preventive health care or improving access to primary care. this is about subsidizing the big abortion industry. if this slush fund remains unchecked, the secretary can fund whatever programs she

chooses to the tune of up to $2 billion a year. that kind of money can purchase a lot of elective abortions which strikes at the conscience of so many taxpayer -- tax paying americans. i urge my colleague to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: that's just about the most convoluted, backward argument i can imagine that i have heard in the 19 years that i'm now here in the united states congress. there is not one dime in the prevention and public health fund that can or will be used for an abortion. the law in this land, enunciated by a legend and icon among other things, henry hyde was, is that federal funds cannot be used for that purpose. and to carry us into that neverland that the previous speaker just spoke of is

astoundingly wrong. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from texas, my good friend, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished gentleman from florida and carefully enthusiastically associate myself with his response. we are all colleagues here and we call each other distinguished colleagues, and i call my good friend from virginia distinguished colleague of which i disagree with with wide and well versed opposition. first of all as we approach both a sacred holiday for many of us in this conry -- country, it is one of sacrifice and as we move into the month of may, begin to look at how mothers sacrifice to take carer -- care of their

children and not themselves. many of us who in this time frame will be fasting because we find that this draconian road that our republican friends are on with the minutest and smallest of majority that voted in this low-voting election in 2010, is frightening. we need prayer. we need to fast. because this is truly the road to ruin. i just hope that my colleagues who communicate to the american people will tell the truth. the budget, the refeel of the prevention and public health, the c.r., all of them are the road to ruin. whether you agree with our president or not, he has it right. the country we can believe in. "the washington post" or any newspaper saying, on the c.r. more than half of the $38 billion in cuts that are used in

this c.r. for tomorrow are taken out of education, labor, and health programs. while those at the top 2%, 1% of the tax bracket keep going on and on. many of whom said we are willing to sacrifice. we are willing to offer to be able to help this country. and then they want to repeal the prevention and public health bill so that the breadth of people going to medical care will be in the emergency room because they will not have cholesterol check or high blood pressure check or sickle cell or diabetes. they'll go in the emergency room laying out in a coma. that's what the repeal of this legislation is all about. the question you ask the republicans is what is the dream or the vision of america for them? it is a road to ruin. and the budget is an absurd ridiculously wants to cut medicare and medicaid. how can you tell going back to the c.r. the district of columbia, citizens who pay

taxes, that they cannot take their own money and use it for the dictates of their elected body. how can you tell them that? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: the gentleman is enormously kind. i sat and listened to congresswoman eleanor holmes norton who has lost the vote on this floor that she had. and the citizens of their community, the mayor, city council could do nothing but take to the streets to protest how can you dictate what we do with our own dollars? over the next 48 hours you will see the reason why many americans are fasting because they see that this country is going down the road of no return. and it hurts my heart to think that we are going to rescind $16 billion that can be used to make a healthier country, to make a country where children can have access to health care, little 10-year-old doesn't die because he has an abscess.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: going to the road to ruin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i feel i have to respond somewhat to my colleague from florida on some of the points that he made. he said that it is the law of the land that no federal government money can be used to fund abortions. i know my colleague from florida has been here a lot longer than i have been, and i know that he understands the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending. i know that he knows that the hyde amendment is only on appropriations bills. as i explainedier, mr. speaker -- explained earlier, mr. speaker, the appropriations bills are what we call correctionary spending, and that

what the democrats did -- discretionary spending, and what the democrats did in this health care bill was to put this $2 billion in that bill and call it mandatory spending which is not subject to the annual appropriations process and therefore does not have the restriction of the hyde amendment to apply to it. so i would like to ask my colleague from florida if he can guarantee on his own word to the american people today that nothing from this $2 billion that is put in for mandatory spending, it's on automatic pilot, would ever be spent for abortions. would the gentleman yield and will he answer that question? mr. hastings: of course i will. i thank the gentlelady for

yielding. please, let's have a clear understanding that no dollars from this fund are going to be used for abortions. mr. -- ms. foxx: can the gentleman guarantee that? mr. hastings: i don't have the opportunity to guarantee whether or not i'm going to be alive the next 30 seconds let alone tell you what may happen. but if you ask my belief and yours as your belief that it may be used is what you said, my dear friend, all i'm saying is it is not going to be. and the law enunciated through henry hyde and almost verbatim has been included in the affordable health care act precludes the use of money for abortions. ms. foxx: i thank -- i'd like to reclaim my time, mr. speaker. the gentleman has just made my point. he cannot guarantee that this money will not be used for

abortions. and neither can anyone else. and that is the point that we are making, mr. speaker. there is no accountability for this $2 billion. it is a slush fund for the secretary of health and hue -- human services and it is wrong, mr. speaker, for us to take the hard-earned money of american taxpayers, give it to the secretary with no accountability, and with the distinct possibility that the money could be used to fund abortions. the libbrals ruling washington the past four years have failed to address out-of-control mandatory or discretionary spending. in fact, under their control discretionary spending has increased 84% in just two years. as i mentioned yerl -- earlier,

discretionary spending is the money congress decides annually to spend on programs with inherent congressional oversight. mandatory or autopilot spending is money that is automatically pulled from the treasury without regular congressional oversight. i'm not sure, mr. speaker, when that decision was made for congress to abrogate its responsibility, but it's a weasel way out. we should be looking at every dollar, every year because that's our responsibility. . our debt and the liberals insatiable appetite for perpetual government spending increases are sending america into a tailspin. in response to the complete lack of leadership in fiscal responsibility, house republicans have been very aggressive in reducing wasteful government overspending which is the real source of breathtaking budget deficits and private

sector unemployment. mr. speaker, i'd like to point out a chart that comes, i believe, from the joint committee and -- on economics and it shows what happens when you increase government spending and when you decrease government spending, when you're talking about private sector job creation. every dollar the government takes from the private sector is one less dollar to be spent for private sector innovation and job growth. the government can create only government jobs. in addition, mr. speaker, to the $13.-- 13.5 million americans counted in the official unemployment rate, more than 900,000 americans have stopped looking for a job because they think no jobs exist for them. i want to point out here that again when we saw increased

government spending you see a decrease in private sector jobs. when you see decreased government spending you see an increase in private sector jobs. that's what the republicans want to do, americans want jobs, they want to work, we need to cut government spending and allow the private sector to grow. more than 45% of americans seeking work have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. real problems demand real solutions, mr. speaker. the track record in the house in three short months demonstrates that the new house republican majority has heard the american people and is acting to provide the relief and solutions they deserve. less government spending is crucial to encouraging private sector job creation and reducing unemployment and we're better to cut possible government spender than where money could be used for abortions.

with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: yes, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to my good friend from california, ms. matsui, a former member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding. mr. speaker, i'm a strong opposition to the rule and the bill before us today. in 2008 i introduced legislation to create a prevention and wellness trust fund. much of what i see in the prevention and public health fund resembles the goals in my legislation. i introduced a legislation and fought for these preventive care provisions during the energy and commerce committee debate on the health care law. i believe investing in preventive health care is vital to helping americans access to care, they need to stay healthy, reduce their health care costs and ease the burden on our overcrowded emergency rooms. mr. speaker, we spend more than

$2 trillion annually on health care. more than any other nation on earth. yet tens of millions of americans still suffer from preventable and chronic diseases. in fact, approximately 75% of the nation's health care expenditure is spent on treating chronic conditions. these conditions account for seven of 10 deaths in america. for too long the health delivery system in our country has been focused on only treating people after they get sick. not before. prevention has been a luxury if not an afterthought. studies have shown that regular access to primary and preventive care can help keep people healthier, help avoid chronic conditions, catch diseases earlier and therefore have lower costs. sacramento resident tyler, an active teenager, was a picture of model health. one day he noticed that he was

having heart problems during football practice. taking precautions, his parents took him to a doctor to run tests. and found that he had a cardiac abnormality. today after taking the necessary preventive steps tyler is healthy. thankfully he sought preventive measures early which kept his condition from worsening and likely saved his life. not every story ends as happily as tyler's, though. millions of americans every year are diagnosed with chronic diseases because they did not have such access to preventive care. that is the focus of this fund, to improve prevention. this funding will reduce individual and taxpayer costs while saving lives. however, that fact is being overlooked by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. this bill before us will have a devastating effect on the future health of america, both in terms of our physical health and for

our fiscal responsibility. in order to truly improve both our health and our health care in this country, we must focus on prevention. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to point out again that republicans would like to see more preventive care. however the example that my colleague from california used says nothing about this bill because there's nothing in here to guarantee that this money will go to preventive care. absolutely nothing. there's no accountability in this legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: yes, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, my classmate, gene green.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas voiced for two minutes. mr. green: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to both this rule and to h.r. 217. the legislation to repeal the prevention and public health fund affordable care act. the affordable care act uses highlight language. i was on the energy and commerce committee, i still am. we put it into the affordable health care law that there would not be one penny of federal funds that will go for elective abortions. the hyde act may be on appropriations bill but the affordable care act has that language in there and i know there's going to be a lot of talk about the legislation and how we need to reduce our deficit and tough funding cuts will be need to be made by congress. h.r. 217 is not meaningful legislation so reduce our debt nor spur our economy. this legislation is yet another attempt by the majority to dismantle and repeal the affordable care act because they do not have the support to do the straight appeal of health reform. as a member of the energy and

commerce committee, i know this bill will be the first to mark a reversal of position by the majority on what's previously been bipartisan support in health care concepts. i've worked across the aisle for years with my colleagues on many prevention provisions, including one, including prevention in public health fund that will fund the integration of primary care services into publicly funded mental and behavioral health settings. to date texas alone has received $495,000 for this program. i introduced this legislation several years of bipartisan support from representative tim murphy. at the time it was called the community mem health services improvement act and yet here we are today rolling back funding on these important bipartisan provisions to fulfill campaign promises. we know that prevention programs will openly save our health care system in the future. we did with the prevention and public health fund and the affordable care act was to make a down payment on reducing preventable health care conditions such as diabetes,

strokes and heart disease. it is an unprecedented investment that will help prevent disease, detected early and manage conditions before they become severe. by concentrating on the causes of chronic disease, the act helps move the nation from a focus on sickness and disease to based on wellness and prevention. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. green: don't let the majority fool you today by saying this legislation is a cost-saving measure. several things that won't with be highlighting in relation to this legislation is a cost-freeting -- is the cost of treating these chronic diseases alone in texas total over $17.2 billion in chronic diseases. if we want to have a debate on saving money and creating jobs and i'd like the majority to show us their job creating and deficit reduction plan. they've been empower -- in power now for 100 days and we've spent most of the time creating more

debt by repealing provisions in the health care reform law, would save my state and constituents billions of dollars. today's yet another example of the majority's misguided -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much. mr. speaker, would you please inform both sides the remaining amount of time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has seven minutes remaining. the gentlelady from north carolina has six minutes remaining. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 1354, the american jobs matter act of 2011. and i am pleased to yield five minutes to address that to the gentleman from kentucky, my friend, mr. murphy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky voiced for five minutes. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman from florida. in washington over the last few months we've seen a lot of what

we're seeing today. a lot of talk from my republican colleagues about with ideological budget cuts, about divisive social issues and today once more we are here debating repeal of the health care bill. but back home we're hearing about one thing and largely one thing only and that's job creation. now i appreciate my friend from north carolina dressing up her remarks with some talk about jobs, but this debate today isn't about creating jobs, this debate is about a political agenda to take on the democratically passed health care bill. but we need to start plugging into where main street is and having a real conversation about job creation in this country. and so i'm here today to talk about one idea in particular that can reach out to the 5,000 manufacturers in my state and the tens of thousands more manufacturing employees who are looking for good middle class work and help from congress that hasn't been forthcoming in the

last three months. since 2001 this country has shut down over 42,000 manufacturing plants. we've lost about five million manufacturing jobs. but during that same period of time we've increased spending on defense manufacturing in this country by 81%. the problem is that 81% increase hasn't gone to factories in kentucky or florida or north carolina or anywhere else. it's gone overseas. because after decades of building loophole after loophole into our domestic sourcing laws like the buy america act we are hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs in part because we're spending more and more taxpayer dollars overseas. so we need to defeat this previous question so that we can bring a commonsense jobs bill to the floor of the house of representatives, the american jobs matter act. now, let me explain what this bill does. it is pretty simple. it says that any time a federal

agency is awarding a contract, in particular the defense department, that they can give a leg up, that they can give preference to the bidder who promises and guarantees to create more u.s. jobs. now most of my constituents think that that already happens. they already think that we have some system in place to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are being used to give preference to american companies rather than foreign companies. it's not happening. the law doesn't allow it. so let's pass today the american jobs matter act, that will make sure that our money gets spent on our jobs here at home. let me tell you a quick story from connecticut. i've got a company that makes copper nickel tubing. they're the only american company that supplies that product to the virginia submarine class and that's one company in europe that makes it. but because we can't give them preference by law today, they've lost one of their most two important contracts to that european supplier and along with it dozens of american jobs. that's our money going overseas

and we need to do something about it rather than debating the health care bill all over again when people really care about building back those manufacturing jobs. we should in fact be spending every day in this congress talking about bills like the american jobs matter act. instead we're talking about defunding sesame street, about destroying planned parenthood and once again today talking about repealing the health care bill and in fact a part of the health care bill that's going to create jobs through preventive health care services. it's no wonder americans think so little of this republican congress. because they're not focused on what people out there are focused on. jobs. the american jobs matter act, if we bring it to the floor today, is a commonsense measure that simply targets taxpayer money to the creation of american jobs. we don't have to spend any more money to create american jobs, we just have to pend the -- spend the money we're already spending better. we spend half the military dollars in the world coming out of the u.s. budget and this engine of expenditure should be used not only to make this

country stronger militarily but also to make it stronger economically. the american jobs matter act is one way to get there and i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can get to the real business of this country, creating good paying middle class jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, we're prepared to close and i'll reserve the balance of my time. mr. hastings: i'd say to the gentlelady that i'll be the last speaker so she can be prepared. i do ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that mr. murphy spoke to in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. hastings: mr. speaker, no prevention or public health funds are or can be used to pay for abortions and this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. what it will stop, this bill as offered by the ruling republican

house, is immunization for kids and seniors. programs to stop childhood obesity and to prevent heart disease and diabetes. that's what they are stopping. so please don't be misled. no dollars from this fund will be used for abortion. if we as legislators are to be about the business of helping americans live healthy, productive lives we must change our fundamental approach to health care by investing in illness prevention not just treatment. the prevention and public health fund is the key to a coordinated, comprehensive, sustainable, and accountable approach to improving our nation health outcomes. i also add that at a time when americans are looking to congress for leadership, the republican ruling majority in the house are continuing their assault on comprehensive health

care reform that expands coverage to 32 million people instead of focusing on job creation. it's time to stop playing games with health of the american people and get down to business. i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass a jobs bill without any further delay. i also urge a no vote on the rule. i yield back the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back the remaining time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd just like to say in response to my colleague from florida that i think this bill has a lot more -- this rule and underlying bill have a lot more to do with elective abortions than it does with government contracting. mr. speaker, we discussed at great length today why secretary sebelius does not need a slush fund set on auto pilot --

autopilot. the american people expect their elected representatives to be wise guardians of their hard-earned dollars. they vehemently objected to the ruling democrat agenda of federal overreach into their daily lives and sent a clear message to washington last november, government must be responsible and accountable. all across america american families are tightening their belts, cutting their budgets, and living within their means. it's time washington did the same. for these reasons and many more, i urge my colleagues -- for these reasons and many more i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill so we can restore congressional spending oversight and save the taxpayers $16 billion over the next 10 years. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker, and move the

previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded back, the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all members requesting a vote by the yeas and nays will stand. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 20 -- 15 minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on the adoption of house resolution 219, if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 218, and adoption of house resolution 218, if ordered. [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 238, the nays are 282. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. the members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 237, the nays are 180, the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the

vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 218 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 29, house resolution 218, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h r. 1473, making appropriationers in department of defense and other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes, providing for consideration of the concurrentres. rution, house concurrent resolution 35, directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make a direction on the enrollment of h.r. 14 3 and providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 36 directing the clerk of the

to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the house will come to order. the luss co-- the house will come to order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may

have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material in the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 219 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1217. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, to preside over the committee of the whole. chaplain coughlin: the committee will come to order. -- the chair: the committee will come to order. members will take their seats. the house will come to order.

members will take their conversations off the floor. the house will come to order. the committee will come to order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1217 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to repeal the prevention and public health fund. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered

read the first time. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: section 4002 of the paca, which my bill would repeal. the section authorizes the operations -- appropriations of and appropriates the fund to the treasury the following amounts, $500 million for f.y. 2010, $750 million for f.y. 2011, $1 billion for f.y. 2012, $1.25 billion for f.y. 2013, $1.25 billion for f.y. 2014. and for f.y. 2015 and every fiscal year thereafter, $2

billion. the secretary of health and human services has the full authority to use this account to fund any programs or activities under the public health service act that she chooses without congressional input, approval or oversight. h.h.s. has already made disbursements from the fund spending $500 million last year and she has $750 million available for her to spend this year to fund prevention activities. the nation's public health infrastructure, work force expansion, increasing immunizations and preventing a variety of diseases. the goals of some of these disbursements are laudable. but we must remember that this funding is over and above the amount that congress has already authorized and appropriated for these activities. there have also been questionable projects that have been financed from these funds including placing signs directing people to bike paths.

when secretary sebelius testified before my subcommittee i asked her if she needed further congressional approval to spend the money from the section 4002 fund and she answered no. i then asked her if she could fund activities above the level congress appropriated and she stated yes. this should concern every member that we have created a slush fund that the secretary can spend from without any congressional oversight for approval. no one here can tell us how this funding will be used. next year or five or 10 or 20 years or 50 years from now. we can't predict how the money will be spent and worse we can't even influence it. i would suggest to my colleagues that if you wanted more funding to go towards smoking cessation or any other program, the health care law should have contained an

explicit authorization because you're not guaranteed that a dime of the money in this fund will go to your particular activity. by eliminating this fund we're not cutting any specific program or activity. i'm not against prevention and wellness. this is not what this is about. this is about reclaiming our oversight role of how federal tax dollars should be used. i urge support for my bill, h.r. 1217, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield now three minutes to the ranking minority member of the energy and commerce committee -- mr. waxman: yield me two. mr. pallone: mr. waxman, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: this is a new attack to disrupt, dismantle and destroy the affordable care act. today they are doing so by sacrificing a long-standing bipartisan policy to push a now partisan ideology. for years republicans have

joined with democrats in supporting programs to prevent disease and promote health and in turn to cut health care costs. but today the house will vote to end funding for the first and only federal program with dedicated ongoing resources designed to make us a healthier nation. every state in the nation is already benefiting from the resources made available from the fund to fight chronic and costly conditions. such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes. repealing the prevention fund is a blow against seniors. in states like california, michigan, iowa, maine, north carolina and massachusetts, they're using these funds to train personal home care aids who assist -- aides who assist the elderly with alzheimer's disease. this is not extremely short sided, it will prove to be fiscally irresponsible.

the return on this kind of upfront investment targets resources to help keep people healthy for as long as possible will over time save precious health care dollars. we need to preserve the prevention fund because it can serve as a cornerstone for a health care system that finally recognizes that preventing illness is as important as treating them. until now prevention has too often been just a mere afterthought. american families support prevention. they want education to help seniors. and then have programs such as mammograms and colonoscopies. and help children to grow up healthy and strong to prevent obesity. we want to start working together to solve the real problems facing our nation. i ask my colleagues to oppose this partisan and divisive

legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. chairman, i at this time yield three minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i do rise today in support of h.r. 1217, the bill that as we already heard repeals the public slush fund that was included in the patient affordable health care act passed a little over a year ago. this fund called the public health fund is almost $18 billion that accounts for the next eight fiscal years, and the secretary of health and human services gets to spend this money on any program that he or she deems worthy. the money -- what the money will be used for and how it will be used essentially is an unknown. neither this congress nor

subsequent congresses have any earthy idea, and yet it is once again an advocation of our authority here in the united states congress of power indeference to the executive branch. if people think that's what we were sent here to to carve off greater and greater pieces of our authority and hand it over to the white house i hope that i'm wrong in that, but it seems like over and over again with the health care big, with the financial reg bill, it seems like that's the mantra here. it does way put too much discretion in the hands of the secretary of the department of health and human services. you know, we have to predict a shortfall in the nation's health care provider work force. some of this money will go for scholarships but it sets up a big problem. under the public health fund some of those same students could receive a scholarship for one year only to fine that the secretary has bigger and better things to spend it on next year. maybe there's a new bike path that needs a sign and that

student would find their education unfunded because all of the discretion rests with the secretary. now, just a moment ago the ranking member of the full committee stood up and said that it seems like all the republicans want to do is defund and remove the affordable care act. well, i appreciate him noticing because, mr. speaker, that is what the election of november 2, 2010, was all about. we were elected to come here and do that work for the american people, and the duplication contained within the slush fund, the ranking member spoke about smoking cessation. i love that. i lost two parents to tobacco-related illness. what about the duplication? when the ranking member was chairman last year, last congress, he created the center for tobacco products at the food and drug administration. we funded that lavishly with a

brand new tax and now we're going to come back and fund it yet again with this public health slush fund? the ranking member asked about what programs we wanted to cut. the question is, do we want to be accountable to the american people who elected us here to do this job? they sent us here to ensure that their money was being spent responsibly and every penny would be accounted for and justified before being spent. with the current state of the economy, mr. speaker, i'm not sure how the american people feel about the secretary choosing to spend money on signs directing people to bike paths. i know how they'd feel about it in my district. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. burgess: i -- if i could have an additional o30 seconds? mr. pitts: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. burgess: in this law, signed in the east room of the white house just other a year ago, section 4002 takes from congress the oversight of

spending and it becomes a blank check for the secretary to do as she wishes without any other input from congress. by doing that, it takes the authority away from the american people because we are the closest contact the american people have with their federal government. by taking us out of the equation, guess what, madam speaker, you not a blank check, it's all yours. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, miss capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank the ranking member. i rise in strong opposition to this bill which would -- simply put, this fund is a critical effort to make our nation healthier and in turn to bring down health care costs.

this misguided bill would return our nation to a system of sick care, a system that hasn't worked, rather than one focused on health and wellness. that's something we can't afford to do. we all know that health care costs are rising at an unsustainable rate. in fact, the republican majority cited these costs as a reason to propose ending medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program and whacking away at poor people's health care by block granting medicaid. but one of the key drivers in entitlement spending is chronic disease. the exact problem addressed by this prevent fund. yet this bill short sightedly cuts back our efforts to reduce chronic illness and promote wellness programs. in california, we are putting these funds to work to slow the alarming rise in obesity rates to train our next generation of public health professionals to curb tobacco use and improve our capacity to respond to disease outbreak.

at a time when counties laid off thousands and struggled to maintain essential health service the need for this fund becomes even more critical. that's why numerous local governments and national organizations including the national association of counties and the american public health association oppose this short-sighted bill. furthermore, the fund is a sound investment. trust for america's health research has shown that investments in proven community-based programs to increase physical activity to improve nutrition and prevent tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually within five years. this is a return of over $5 for every $1 invested. not only do these programs add to our constituents' quality of life, but it can also increase their economic output by keeping them healthy and in the work force. these are some of the reasons that i stand with these folks and urge a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is

recognized. mr. pitts: at this time, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: i do rise in support of h.r. 1217. i think this is an important bill for us to bring forward. i want to thank the chairman for bringing it forward and for helping to lead this congress in the repeal of obamacare. it is a message that the american people sent loud and clear last november. they do not want to see government coming in and controlling their health care choices. that is something that should be made by individuals, their family members, and their physicians and not by the federal government. i have found it so interesting as we've been through the hearings on this and through the markups that we continue to hear, well, this $17.75 billion

is not that much money. isn't that amazing? that in the middle of a c.r. crisis a debt crisis, that we're hearing such rhetoric? i think it is amazing that we are being told and through what we know, yes and some of us did read the bill and we do know what was in that bill, that the secretary can spend it however she wants to, she does not have to come back to congress another time to get permission for spending this slush fund. isn't it amazing that some of the our -- some of our colleagues think a fund will make people healthier. money doesn't make people healthier. we all know that. and isn't it amazing that in the middle of all of this, we are out of money at the federal level, we all know the cost of health care is rising, and we know that one of the reasons that the cost of health care

has risen so much in the last few years is government intervention. those are some of the known components we have. i think it's important to realize too, mr. speaker, eliminating the slush fund does not cut any specific programs. and proponents of this fund want to claim that we're cutting, we're cutting, we're cutting. what we're doing is saying, no, you can't allow the secretary to have control and just give it out. this needs to go through the normal, regular funding processes. that is very important. and it's time that we realize we have to do that. yes, let's move forward. yes, let's repeal obamacare. yes, let's get it off the books. let's do everything we can to get the federal government out of your pocket, out of the middle of your health care decisions, let's make certain that those choices go to individuals and to their

physicians and that they are not going to be dictated by the secretary of health and human services who has a slush fund of $17.75 billion to spend as they see fit over the next 10 years. we need to be changing the way health care is going to work and we need to do it with putting individuals in charge. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. >> i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. schakowsky: here they go again. the republicans failed in their efforts to repeal the affordable care act and now they're reversing course and trying to kill implementation by attacking individual provisions of the law. the united states has a health care system design t.d. treat the sick, not to prevent disease from occurring in the

first place. the prevention and public health fund is a crucial component of the effort to remedy that weakness and transform today's sick care system into a prevention focused system. this fund will avert future illness, save lives and restrain the rate of depothe of health care costs. it's a dedicated investment in community prevention and is a much-needed down payment on the health and economic well being of all americans. federal investments from the prevention and public health fund have already begun to address improvements in the nation's health status. by supporting a central and proven activities such as immunization. immunization. and tobacco cessation. it holds great promise to improve the capacities of state and local departments to reduce the risk of health threats through the use of technology and will increase the numbers of highly skilled scientists

and other public health professionals. i want to be very clear and you've heard it yourselves, this is another attempt by republicans to defund the affordable care act and stop its implementation. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill to repeal the prevention and public health fund and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back -- the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: the gentlelady kept saying it will, it will, it will, but the simple fact is we don't know where the money is going to go. i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey a member they have subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. at least some members of the body can remember ads back years ago touting the benefits of carter's little liver pills, probably all the members can remember because it was just a year ago andy griffith touting the new health care reform bill and those of us who are on

medicare remember getting those glossy mail outs, very expensive, slick-looking ads, really touting the benefits that obamacare has brought to medicare. even though the new bill, the new entitlement creation, took something like $550 billion out of medicare, yet the -- they had the audacity to send these ads out, these flyers saying they'd improved medicare osm because macare improves medicare. go figure. that's a concern here. that's why i'm standing in strong support of chairman pitts' bill h.r. 1217. the prevention and public health fund is established under patient protection affordable care act, opaw macare, for prevention, wellness and public health activities authorized in the public health service act and administered by secretary sebelius, secretary of health

and human services. but she can use those funds in any way she deems appropriate. as long as she says it's for public health. can it pay for political tv advertising, for president obama ahead of the 2012 elections? absolutely she could. nothing could stop her. the congress couldn't. as long as she deems it necessary for public health. pay for thousands of signs in communities across the country declaring that it's a success? nothing would stop this secretary or any secretary from doing so, as long as they call it for public health. not even -- no, not even congress. as the chairman said, mr. speaker, the amount of $17 billion, almost $18 billion is just the first down payment, you will, because in perpetuity, $2 billion a year continues to be appropriated. and you to that with a bill

that quite honestly this member thinks will be declared within a year and a half, hopefully sooner, unconstitutional system of weir spending money that's absolutely unnecessary at a time when we are sitting here with $14 trillion worth of debt and listening to the secretary of the treasury say within six weeks we're going to have to raise the debt ceiling so we can boar remore money. here we're spending $17 billion, with a b, and that's not just chump change by any stretch of the imagination. last year in 2010, the c.d.c. actually spent $500 knoll promote increasing the excise tax on tobacco to the states, basically saying to states, you need to make sure you raise taxes on tobacco because it's for health purposes. it's going -- can i have 15 more seconds? mr. pitts: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i thank the chairman for yielding, let me just conclude that clearly this is a necessary bill to let congress once again have the opportunity to control spending. that is our responsibility. that is our constitutional right. that's what the american people want and i think the chairman is absolutely right with this bill and i fully support it and urge my colleagues to do as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield now a minute and a half to the ranking democrat on the labor health appropriations subcommittee, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. delauro: i urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. it will endanger the health of the american people we included the fund in the affordable care act because we know it --

preventive health care reduces health care costs. preventable causes of death such as tobacco smoking, poor diet and physical inact tiffity, the misuse of alcohol have been estimated to be responsible for 900,000 deaths annually. nearly 40% of total yearly mortality in the united states. further, seven in 10 deaths in america are from chronic diseases and by 2020, the u.s. may spend $685 billion a year on these chronic diseases. this fund works to bring down these numbers and to help americans live longer, healthier lives. preventive care is responsible. one example would be impacted by this misguided legislation is vaccines. estimates indicate we save up to $400 for every illness averted by vaccination and that doesn't take into account the cost of further transmission in the case of serious public health epidemics.

by supporting our public health work force, building health infrastructure, by promoting exercise, preventing tobacco use, this fund will go a long way toward reducing the surging cost of health care for american families and for our nation. it is shortsighted folly to repeal this fund now, especially when you consider all the oil subsidies and breaks for corporate lobbyists that the majority has included in their budget. we should not be putting political ideology before public health like this, i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield two minutes to mr. lance. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lance: i rise in support of h.r. 1217. as a member of the energy and commerce health subcommittee, my colleagues and i held a number of hearings that explore

the impact of the new health care law. these hearings have revealed the existence of several programs and mandatory spending provisions contained in the law, health and human services secretary sebelius said during testimony that she had sole discretion over billions of dollars in direct, unlimited mandatory spending under the law. this means that without any congressional hearing, without any language in appropriation bills and without any oversight the executive branch has been granted unprecedented spending authority. today's legislation, h.r. 1217, will repeal one of those little known programs called the prevention and public health fund. it's subjected to the annual appropriations process. the aim may be worthy, mr. speaker, but this should be subjected to the annual appropriations process. this action, according to the congressional budget office, will save american taxpayers

$16 billion over the next 10 years. mr. speaker, as we all know, the federal government is $14 trillion in debt, our deficit for this year will be at least $1.5 trillion. we must get federal spending under control. we can start by repealing programs that run afoul of congressional oversight. i urge members to support h.r. 1217, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette. the chair: the gentlelady from colorado is recognized for two minutes. ms. degette: thank you, mr. chairman. i am frankly stunned to have to come to the house floor today to talk about a floor that redunds the largest investment we ever made in our population's health, the prevention and public health trust fund. the trust fund specifically says what it's going to be used for, reducing tobacco use,

expanding opportunities for recreation and exercise, bringing healthier foods like fruit and vegetables to communities in need and helping kids to eat healthier meals in schools. all of us who had been involved in health issues for many years know that the biggest public health epidemic that we have right now is obesity, and if we don't do anything to reverse these trends, then for our children and our children's children we are not going to have good outcomes. 75% of all health care costs are spent on the treatment of chronic diseases, many of them preventable. our nation's youth are confronting unprecedented levels of obesity, placing them at ever-increasing risk for those same chronic conditions. i think it's pathetic that we have children in this country who only have access to playgrounds at mcdonald's when we only have 8,000 playgrounds in this country. and so what this -- what this

trust fund does is it supports research that examines evidence-based practices relating to prevention, including the translation and interventions from academic settings to real-world settings. this is not, as the opponents of this trust fund say, a slush fund, or something that's willy-nilly spending. instead it's evidence-based and it's looking at ways we can prevent childhood obesity and nutrition, reduce toe bako use -- tobacco use and expand recreational exercise. this is something we should all support. i'm sorry it's been caught up in this partisan web because, frankly, we should all support this for our kids. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i have the copy of the law the gentlelady referred to. she says the trust fund refers

to spending for fresh food and vegetables and other things, there's none of that in the language. i would welcome her to point it out. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey seek time? mr. pallone: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lucille roibled -- roybal-allard. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. roybal-allard: the prevention fund is our pro-active commitment to changing the focus of our health care system to one of treatment to one of keeping americans healthy. this change in focus is essential because keeping people healthy improves the quality of lives and that of their family and it's the best means of controlling preventable chronic diseases

which accounts for seven out of 10 deaths and 75% of our annual health care costs totaling $1.7 trillion. if h.r. 1217 passes, we lose a critical opportunity to control health care costs and we lose the opportunity to reduce unnecessary suffering and death from preventable chronic diseases. adding to the assault of h.r. 1217 on public health and prevention is the f.y. 2011 continuing resolution which cuts c.d.c.'s budget by over $700 million. the result of these proposals is that millions of americans will needlessly continue to suffer from preventable diseases, costly hospitalization. prevention saves lives and prevention savings money. defeat h.r. 1217 and continue to build a healthier america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time.

-- the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. christensen: thank you. mr. speaker and colleagues, i cannot believe we are here that would repeal the prevention and public health fund. at a time when we should strengthen the well-being of this nation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing the exact opposite with h.r. 1217. currently we have tens of millions of hardworking millions who are suffering, some die were preventable dedisease. and without prevention and public health efforts the very services this fund was created to support, 10's of millions more will be effect -- tens of millions more will be affected in the future. we should not be here fighting about the merit and value of keeping the prevention and public health fund in place. we will do better of our country if we were instead

discussing increasing it. as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not moved by the disastrous human impact, then they may be moved by the economic impact because not having prevention and effective health measures in place will cost money and a lot of it. on the other hand, the journal of health affairs reported that increasing the use of proven preventive services from the current levels to 90% will result in $3.7 billion in savings in just one year and we know from a joint senate study that reducing health disparities, which this fund would do, could save as much as $1.27 trillion in direct and indirect medical costs in just a three-year period. the prevention and public health fund is unharmful and unjust. it's contrary to our values and a disrespect of the value of human life. it will not save money. in fact, it will cost this nation more, both in human health and wellness as well as

in actual health care spending. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote to protect all americans and the moral standing of this country by voting no on h.r. 1217. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, can i ask how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania still controls 15 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from new jersey controls 17 1/2 minutes. mr. pitts: how much? the chair: 17 1/2. mr. pitts: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, it's been 100 days of the republicans' no jobs agenda and they've chosen to vote time and energy to bills and resolutions that would defund the affordable care act, eliminate mandatory support for preventive care and abolish any and all federal

support for planned parenthood. the house republicans know these measures won't be approved by the senate and would never be signed by the president. it's just political gesture at a time when we need to promote economic recovery. now the bill on the floor this week, h.r. 1217, would abolish the affordable care laws prevention and public health. this is a fund that prevents disease, that helps manage conditions before they become severe. all impeercal data, all experience and plain old common sense informs us that prevention and early treatment not only save lives, they also save money. in fact, the prevention and public health fund prevents illness before people get sick. the republican assertion that mandatory funding, which i've heard over and over again today and also in the health subcommittee that this is somehow mandatory funding and that it's unprecedented, that's

complotely not true. medicaid -- completely not true. medicaid and medicare have mandatory support and there are a lot of programs one our committee's jurisdiction and in congress in general that are funded through mandatory funding. so you know, i don't know how many times i am going to come to the floor and hear about repealing the health care reform. i understand tomorrow there's going to be an enrolled bill that goes along with the c.r. that's going to defund the whole affordable care act. so i don't know. here today we are going to defund one piece, the prevention fund. tomorrow we got another enrollment resolution that defunds the whole bill. planned parenthood, again, another resolution tomorrow to defund planned parenthood. how many times are we going to keep voting on the same thing over and over and own again? meanwhile, i don't see a single piece of legislation coming to this floor that addresses jobs or the economy. when i go home people want to know what we're doing about the economy.

they know the health care reform passed. they're benefiting from it. it's gradually unfolding before them. they don't want us to continue to debate the same thing over and over again. repeal, defund and no suggestion about what you would do to replace it either, by the way. but i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. could i ask the other gentleman how many speakers he has left? mr. pallone: actually, i do have a few more speakers, and i see that the gentlewoman from texas is here. i'd yield her one minute to ms. sheila jackson lee -- mr. pitts: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for how many minutes? one minute. the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished gentleman from new jersey and let me thank the chairman of the committee as well. madam chair woman, we just have

a disagreement, and i would venture to say that the bulk of sick people in america and others who every day struggle to maintain their health so they can provide for their families would vigorously disagree as well. there is two points i'd like to make. when we repeal this affordable care act and the funding of it is more than the glory that we get from going home and bragging that we have undermineded america's health care system or some would say we have taken away obamacare. preventative care is an unbelievable plus that this bill has generated. i went to one of my mother-in-law centers, a new one that is crafted under the public health system. it is to take off the load of the emergency centers or the emergency centers that ambulances go to. what an amazing sight of people

going there with broken toes and maybe the beginning of heart disease and other problems, but it was a lower level emergency room. not particularly preventative care. but the kind of intervention that saves millions of dollars. i want to go even lower than that. and i don't use that terminology. but i want people to be able to go and check on their cholesterol, check on their high blood pressure, understand whether they have sickle cell, understand what stage of diabetes they're in or understand what stages of heart disease that they're in in a preventative care cycle. and everyone knows that economists document how many billions of dollars that will save. how can we vote against that? secondarily, there's two parts to this act that's being repealed, research and training for health professionals that we absolutely need, whether you're in the private health care system or not, and then of

course protecting our most precious resource, our children. if you can raise a child in a healthy man for the terms of nutrition, in terms of immunization, in terms of regular doctor visits, you are able to save billions of delas. this is wrongheaded and a wrong direction. many of us are fasting. i said on this floor, we must pray because this is the wrong direction to go. with that, madam chairwoman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: madam chairwoman, we're never going to bend the cost curve on health care until we focus much more on disease prevention. that's what this prevention fund is for. i thought that both republicans and democrats wanted to keep people out of the hospital, off ofties ability, leading productive lives and trying to prevent diseases before they occur. i never thought this was a

partisan issue. because we need to have a system of well care, not sick care if we're really going to have success in saving money and bending the cost curve. i don't understand what my republican colleagues, so many times in the committee, would talk about prevention but all of a sudden now they want to abolish the prevention fund. it doesn't make sense. before the affordable care act, prevention activities were chronically underfunded, accounting for only 2% to 4% of the health spending by some estimates. to spend an additional $2 billion for wellness and prevention is a wise investment. since the affordable care act was enacted, every state has benefited from the prevention and wellness fund. this year over $750 million in grants were disbursed, build ogen a $500 million investment last year and putting the brakes on this program would mean putting the brakes on

programs already beginning to make a difference. in my home state of new jerseymark of my constituents benefited from over $15 million in public health grants, funding for h.i.v. prevention, mental health care, critical public infrastructure improvements, swert support for primary training. i have a sheet here, i have a similar sheet for mr. pitts and dr. burgess and others who specified these are the types of grants that are being made available in their states. i simply don't understand, there's 600 national state and local organizations supporting the fund as a primary vehicle for making public health investments that would create jobs and help lower long-term health costs. the committee has -- the energy and commerce committee have heard many, many time -- have heard me many times say we have

to focus on prevention. we had the c.b.o. and they said -- and i said why don't you calculate prevpk? we would save trillions of dollars. they don't do it. but we all know that prevention saves money. if you concentrate on chronic diseases, this moves the nation from a focus on sickness and ts to one based on wellness and prevention. if you take away the critical new investment in prevention it's going to be harmful to the health of americans now and in the future. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm prepared to close. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i'm prepared to close, i'll reserve but i'm prepared to close. mr. pitts: you go first. the chair: the gentleman from

new jersey. mr. pallone: it was my understanding that i get to close. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has the right to close. mr. pallone: he has the right to close? ok, let me yield mist such time as i may consume. madam chairwoman, i'll address this directly to my republican colleagues, in the last few weeks when we had hearings in the health subcommittee on the various measures that the republicans wanted to the fund -- defund and i know way tant to defupped they will the whole bill and that's what they're going to try to do again tomorrow. i understand that. i totally disagree with it but i understand they're against the affordable care act, they want to defund it but it seems to me that to mick the -- pick the one bill that deals with prevention is really the worst thing you could have done today because what we're trying to do with the affordable care act and what i've sought to do with everything we've done in the

subcommittee since i've been on it is to stress prevks. we can avoid people from going to hospitals, we can avoid people from going to nursing homes, they can lead a better quality of life and save money. i think it's unfortunate today that after so many years of a burn effort to deal with prevention to fund prevention issues that this is the one bill, the one fund that's actually picked on today to come to the floor. i think it's really a horrible thing that that's the case. i urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution because if you really believe in prevention, if you really believe we can make a difference in making people well an preventing them from getting sick, you should vote against this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam chair, it's time for a fiscal reality check. the federal government is now borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends. washington is spending more

than one of every $4 this country produces and we are facing a third straight year with a -- a third straight year with a trillion-dollar deficit. yet when the subcommittee roted on this straightforward bill to strip billions from the health care law based on the simple premise that congress should fund prevention and wellness activities by prioritizing them in the regular annual spending process, the response from the other side of the aisle was to say, we're not broke. madam chair, i beg to differ. our debate today is not about the virtue of preventive health care and wellness programs. i support prevention. the real question is whether our nation can afford to authorize the secretary of health and human services to spend nearly $18 billion over and above what congress appropriates over the next decade on programs of the administration's choosing. h.r. 1217 does not cut a single

program because this fund does not guarantee funding for any particular program. every member who supports this fund on the assumption that it provides additional money far project they deem worthy should understand that no one knows where this money will be spent. perhaps it could be used to combat obesity or for cancer screenings or perhaps it'll be used to post signs about the location of bike paths. the point is, congress abdicates our authority and responsibility for investing in prevention by handing a perpetual blank check to the secretary. governing and solving our fiscal problems is difficult. it requires hard choices. it is easy to spend. the easy choice was to assign mandatory advanced appropriations to these initiatives rather than making

them a budget priority. but it's only easy until the bill is due and the credit card is maxed out. well, the bill is due, and the credit card limit is approaching fast. congress needs to reassert its role and set spending priorities rather than give the executive branch unfettered power to spend as it wishes. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and madam chair, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in house report 112-61. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment,

shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to tchand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-61. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the tesk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report 112-61, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker.

i know sometimes in the rush of legislating, many members are faced with any number of challenges in understanding legislation, but i do know that the majority has come with their own road map and i do want to respect the different viewpoints and i don't say this in my way to malign. first of all, i'm grateful that this amendment was made in order, but i wish it wasn't because i understand that all legislation that passes needs to have, in fact, or often has those who agree with it and these who do not. that's fair enough. and the process that we usually use to handle that is to amend, not repeal. there are some sections here

that i've looked at and have concern with. and many have heard me on the floor of the house discussing a number of issues regarding my local hospitals. but i will say to you that the repeal of this bill is putting us on the road to ruin. my amendment is simple. it asks the h.h.s. to place on its website the moneys rescinded so that the american people can see. for some it may be to see the great success of taking away money, for others it may be to see what has happened to the resources that they need to take care of themselves. very quickly, this amendment requires for fiscal year 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, to list the amount of money being taken away from good health care but also, madam speaker, it will

also hopefully point people to what they're losing. for example, look at this beautiful baby here. we will not have, under the repeal of this affordable care act, the bounty of preventive care for those with chronic diseases, americans who are subject to chronic disease such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes. their only care will be the emergency room. high-priced emergency rooms. when they're in a diabetic coma or they're in a stroke or they have a heart attack, rather than be able to go to their doctors, but we start early on with this little baby, being able to go to wellness clinics or to their community health clinics. that's what the money that's being rescinded is going to do to you. in addition, you will find that chronic diseases resulted in $75.3 billion in dollars lost

in productivity in the state of texas alone. the rescissions will also impact all the states. i have a list of almost 50 states that have been to -- that have begun to receive dollars from the affordable care act from beall to alaska to pennsylvania to massachusetts to michigan to rhode island and south carolina and tennessee and texas, all of the states that my good friends come from. they are receiving money right now. in addition to this issue of taking away money, prevention to for healthy america concluded that investing $10 per person, per year to improve programs that increase physical activity and prevent smoking and other tobacco can save the country more than $16 billion annually within five years. when you see how much money was taken away, just realize that you multiply that, if it's a total of $16 billion, you're going to lose $16 billion a year because there will not be any wellness programs.

community and clinical prevention, which is about $2 million, and so you'll take away money from h.i.v. prevention and that is a very costly propose. a you'll take away from public health infrastructure. you'll take away from primary care residency expansion programs training resident -- residents and doctors. you'll take away advancement of physician assistant training. you'll take away from public health departments where they link people to needed health care. you'll take away childhood and adult immunizations and protecting the water we drink and the food we eat. let me say that my amendment is to shine the light on what will be happening to the health care of americans, i want my colleagues to tell their constituents, not those that are already focused on negative aspects of what we're trying to do here, but those who are simply hard working mothers and fathers trying to make a living

and need this health care. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. does the gentleman rise in opposition to the amendment? pitts pitts i might -- mr. pitts:, i might mention all of the programs she mentioned are not mentioned in this section of the law. there is no guarantee this money will be spent for any of that. h.r. 1217 repeals the prevention and public health fund and resinds unobligated balances. the jackson lee amendment would require the secretary of health and human services to post on the h.h.s. public web site, a notice of the recision of unobligated balances of the public health fund and the amount of the recision. i support transparency in government. i actually wish there was more transparency and how h.h.s. has already spent the money in this

fund. the lack of transparency and accountability regarding this fund is the primary reason i support h.r. 1217 and if the author feels this would increase transparency, then i support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 and 3 printed in house report 112-61. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. castor: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-61 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 219, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: my amendment requires a government accountability study within 90 days of enactment of the law to study the impact of prevention the public health initiative has on preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health. prevention works. it's smart. it is -- it saves the taxpayers money. it saves families money and it saves lives. the prevention in public health initiative empowers communities all across this great nation to focus on prevention and wellness and what works for them when it comes to reducing cancer cases, reducing heart disease, reducing stroke back in our own hometowns. in florida alone, there are over 10 million cases of the seven

most chronic -- most common chronic diseases, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hyper tension, stroke and pulmonary conditions. we know our family, friends, folks we go to church with and see in the grocery store that suffer from these diseases and a lot of these cases if they had gotten early detection or we had worked harder on prevention, they wouldn't have fallen into that trap of the disease and all that it brings for families and communities. see, we have a better approach now. we're smarter in america. no longer should our health care system be focused on only taking care of folks in the hospital when they're sick or at the end stages, we're smarter. we can prevent a lot of this through education and being pro active and encouraging a health year lifestyle and that's what the prevention in hub health

does. states and local communities are able to decide what works best for them. this isn't washington dictating what you should do. this is saying to our local hometowns and communities, what do you think works best for you? i would encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at the grants that are being made. how are your local communities making these investments work in your own district to invest in the long-term health of our neighbors and the economic prosperity of our communities. for example, in my hometown, in my district, the pinellas health department was brought together neighborhoods and nonprofits to determine what's going to work best and encouraging lifestyles. we have an obesity epidemic and they are building bike lanes and make improvements to parks so children have the opportunity to get out and play after school instead of sitting in front of the television. i also have a great public university, the university of south florida in my district.

they are training the modern health care work force in florida. these are professionals fighting on the front lines of our communities and yes, creating jobs, this is creating jobs to encourage the health year lifestyles that work. u.s.f. is able to identify where the gaps in training might be, update curriculum to make sure they receive the up-to-date research and they can spend the word throughout the churches, grocery stores and our neighborhoods. the florida department of health is also using these grants in checking on all of our strategies statewide to determine what works. this is one of the important foles of the affordable care act to promote health year outcomes and the examples i just shared with you are a few of what is happening all across the country. we are smarter. prevention works and saves taxpayers money. it saves families money and it

saves lives. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise in opposition to the amendment? mr. pitts: yes, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i stand in opposition. it wants the g.a.o. to pontificates on activities financed by funds under the section. as we have pointed out, section 4002 gives the secretary of h.h.s. complete discretion to spend the slush fund with little limitation. any program within the public health service act regardless of its merit or effectiveness is eligible for funding under section 4002. how can we ask the g.a.o. to determine the effectiveness of spending dollars when we don't know how the dollars will be spent? is g.a.o. to assume that funds

will be used to train doctors or build jungle gyms? will their report make the assumption that the money will be used to advocate for soda tax increases in states or build signs that direct people to bike paths? all of these activities can be funded through this slush fund. according to the energy and commerce minority view, pitt county, north carolina received a grant from the fund that will be in part used to, quote place signage within communities to point out public parks, other recreational opportunities and the availability of bike lanes, end quote. this amendment underscores the major problem with section 4002. rather than letting congress weigh the relative value of programs through the annual appropriations process, my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to throw dollars to a political appointee at

h.h.s. to spend billions of dollars on any program with no oversight. the amendment also places an unrealistic timetable on the g.a.o. to issue an report within 90 days of enactment. it is a waste of money to ask g.a.o. to conduct a study with little time to complete what is clearly an impossible task. i urge my colleagues to vote no. and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the chair reserves. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentlewoman has one minute remaining and the gentleman from pennsylvania has 2 1/2 minutes. and he has the right to close. ms. castor: what would be a waste of money would be if we do not act on education and knowledge, because we know that prevention works in america. when you educate someone on

health year lifestyles, the likelihood is that they are going to live a health year life. they could prevent disease. maybe they get early detection of their cancer and that would save them a lot of money and it would save the government money. let's be smart about this. prevention works. my friends across the aisle, their proposal to end medicare as we know it, that is not smart. again like prevention, medicare works. it saved families money and the plan to privatize medicare and turn it into a voucher program, is not going to save any money but will shift the cost to families and will have to pay more. prevention works. i urge adoption of my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: the simple fact is everything she just mentioned doesn't know it will be funded. there is no guarantee to fund

any of those things. i urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back. the chair: all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it -- the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentlewoman ask for a recorded vote? ms. castor: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-61. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. castor: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-64 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, and a

member opposeded will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: my amendment requires a government accountability study to examine the economic impact prevention and public health grants have on states and local communities. now i can tell you we don't really need a study to understand how important prevention is and how important it is to empower our hometowns and local governments, nonprofits, whoever can come together at a local level and make these decisions about encouraging health year lifestyles. the -- health year lifestyles. it is not washington dictating all across the country, a cookie cutter approach, one size fits all, but we empower our neighbors to make decisions on what works for them. what works back in my hometown would probably not work in fargo

or missouri. prevention of disease is smart and saves family money and saves taxpayers money as well. now over time, we have all gotten smarter about preventing chronic diseases. much of this was brought to bear in the landmark affordable care act. and this prevention and public health initiative, which is the most historic investment in public health in our communities in the history of our country. now from the extreme arguments against prevention from my colleagues across the aisle, the prevention in public health, empowers states and local communities to determine what works best for them sm the annual treatment cost of chronic diseases costs the united states over $270 billion. and our economy has lost over $1 trillion in lost productivity. in florida alone, we have lost over delrgs -- $68 billion due

to heart disease, diabetes and cancer. so not only does prevention help us reduce costs, it can be an economic boost to our communities. i can tell you back in florida, we need as much an economic boost as we can get. we have a high unemployment rate and large number of uninsured, so what can be smarter than targeting our communities and encouraging them on lifestyles so they can get back to work and creating jobs through doing this. for example, at the university of south florida, college of public health, they have received one of the public health grants where they are hiring and training the modern public health work force. these are the folks that are able to go out to the communities and encourage them and educate them on what it would mean if they didn't smoke, if they didn't drink. sometimes -- oftentimes these

initiate have a great impact. they can save us money and lives. in pinellas, they are combating childhood obesity. the program manager for the communities putting prevention to work pinellas. they have created 18 jobs as a direct result of this life saving work. so i would encourage all of you to ask your folks back home what works best for them. apply for these grants. we can make a difference all across america, save taxpayers money, save our families money and save lives while we are at it and i reserve. . the chair: the gentlelady resevens, does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise in opposition to the amendment? mr. pitts: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. pitts: this amendment calls for us to make assumptions on the impact of this by however, section 4002 gives the secretary of h.l.: -- h.h.s. complete discretion to spend this slush fund with little oversight. when no one except the secretary knows how the dollars will be spent. what will g.a.o. base their assumptions on? does placing signage for bike path prosstuse economic activity? or does advocating higher soda taxes benefit the economy? these activities have been financed by programs eligible for funding under section 4002. members and the fwmplet a.o. cannot determine the economic impact of the fund because the secretary controls how it is to be spent. will g.a.o. be charged with

determining whether borrowing 42 drents of every $1 this fund spends has a positive economic impact? this amendment underscores the major problems with section 4002. rather than letting congress weigh the relative value of programs through the annual appropriations process, my friends on the other side of the aisle have decided to throw dollars to a political appointee at h.h.s. to spend billions on any program with no oversight. the amendment also places an unrealistic timetable on the g.a. tomplet to issue a re-- on the g.a.o. to issue a reply on the re-enactment. we are not using funds wisely when we ask the g.a. tomplet to -- g.a.o. to conduct a study like this.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from florida. ms. castor: we are spending our dollars wisely when we invest in prevention and wellness. prevention works. it saves money, it saves the taxpayers money and it saves lives. there has been a lot of debate over health care in the past few years. i think we can all agree on that. part of the focus of the debate is that our health care system has focused and spent money on the end game, on sickness. when people have cancer. and that's fine. but we can be smarter about it. we have a lot more knowledge and a lot of experts that have advised us all that if you invest in prevention to encourage folks not to smoke, not to drink, those easy things, very easy in lifestyle but often times they need a little extra help. parents should turn off the tv and the kids should go out and play and they should exercise. but sometimes it's that little

extra push and if we can make a dent in childhood obesity, diabetes, cancer, a stroke, because we've encouraged healthier lifestyles with this very modest investment, that will be a great accomplishment. that's part of what the health care debate was about. taking this modest investment in public health and empowering our communities to make those decision ops what works if them. prevention works, it's smart, i urge me adoption of my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yield back? ms. castor: i yield become my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: again the gentlelady has made my point. she has no guarantee that in the year 2015, the secretary will fund programs like cessation of smoking or obesity. she has not a clue. what if the secretary decided to use the whole $2 billion for abstinence education in 2015?

she has no clue what it will be used for. i urge the members to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate on the amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is -- the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-61 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by ms. castor of florida and amendment number 3 by ms. castor of florida. the chair will reduce to five

minutes the time required for any vote in this series. the first recorded vote is a request for a railroaded vote on amendment number two offered by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: ealt number 2 printed in house report 112-61, offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having