that could be done by the governor. it's nothing but a photo-op. and a quick synopsis of his tour of duty. the health care deal, all it took to get that passed. and as far as the oil, if you go back to april 2010, we had the big mine disaster in west virginia. 15 days later, the oil rig blowed up in the gulf. you tell me that is a coincidence? here's a man that hates oil and coal and within 15 days, two such events happen? host: robert, do you think the

president can impact gas prices? caller: yes, he is going to make them go up. because he wants to get elected. he's a communist. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] jean, democratic caller, your next. caller: the oil company drills in the u.s. and take it overseas to sell it. then they buy it from over there and bring it back over to sell it to us. the price will not go down until they stop that. it should be sold in the u.s. if it is drilled in the u.s. host: letter from an independent, stacy in new jersey. go ahead. caller: an earlier comment about battleships, some people to think anything can be accomplished at the end of a

gun. speculator is another word for money changer. 40 years ago there were solar panels on the white house. we have to let our light shine. go to revolutiontruth.org. host: all right. thanks very much for your comments this morning. general allan is on capitol hill right now on c-span3. that's about the situation in afghanistan. president obama will speak around 11:00 a.m. today in oklahoma. c-span.org for more. now, live coverage of the house. the speaker: the house will be in session. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god through whom we see what we could be and what we can become. thank you for giving us another day. send your spirit upon the members of the people's house

to encourage them in their official tasks. be with them and with all who labor here to serve this great nation and its people. assure them that whatever their responsibilities, you provide the grace to enable them to be faithful to their duties and the wisdom to be conscious of their obligations and fulfill them with integrity. remind us all of the dignity of work and teach us to use our talents and abilities in ways that are honorable and just and are a benefit to those we serve. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the

speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on combreg to the speaker's approval of the journal -- 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 ayes have tanned the journal is approved. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. mr. dold: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, every american should be given the

freedom to make his or her own decisions regarding health care. when the government takeover health care bill was passed, the liberal-control congress took away this right and instead created the pro bowlers association, yabe. this -- created the ipab. they are responsible for making cuts to medicare, which will lead to waiting, denial of care. republicans will vote on a bill that will eliminate ipab and strengthen a doctor-patient relationship. our country cannot spend $1.4 trillion on an unconstitutional government mandate which the nfib reveals it will destroy 1.6 million jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from michigan seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today in support of repeal ipab. however, i speak in opposition to tying this repeal to house resolution 5. this is disingenuous at best. it relingishes -- it passes it to insurance companies, undermines congress' ability to represent the needs of our seniors and make decisions on health care policy for medicare beneficiaries. we must preserve access to quality medicare while containing costs and replacing the flawed payment system. simply cutting reimbursements is not nf. if we should repeal ipab, we should do it as a stand-alone bill. the senate will not bring this up for a vote. why are we wasting time on this when it won't become law? the american people want us to work together, not to be active

participants in political theater. i urge my colleagues to have an honest and open debate on medicare by bringing an independent ipab repeal bill to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: madam speaker, i rise today in support of the legislation we will vote on later, to repeal the independent payment advisory board, created under the patient protection and affordable care act. this is something that simply should not have been done. these are unelected board members, 15 of them appointed by the president, tasked with finding savings and making recommendations. unfortunately, because the limitations what the board can cut, the majority of spending reductions will cutting reimbursements from doctors and those who care for medicare patients. the ultimate result will be fewer options for patients who are driven out of the medicare system. -- when doctors are driven out of the medicare system. we were told when the affordable care act was passed that it would lead to a

reduction in premiums. it's done exactly the opposite. this kind of board and these kind of decisions made by un elected officials will simply drive the costs up further, and we cannot afford to do that. my only regret in today's action is that we are not repealing the entire act, and i hope that comes soon. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. baca: madam speaker, today i rise to speak of the need to protect health care of the american woman. last week i hosted a woman's conference focused on the benefit of affordable care act for women. the historic health care reform is a step in the right direction for the health of mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters. thanks to affordable health care, a woman can no longer be dropped from insurance coverage when they get sick or become pregnant. 20 million women have already

used prepreventive services offered through health care reform, including mammograms and colonoscopies. beginning 2014 women won't be denied coverage for having pre-existing conditions. the health care law finally ends gender rating in which women are forced to pay higher premiums than men for the same coverage. women are the foundation of our families. we must protect the benefit of health care reform and ensure that all women have better access to health care. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dold area -- mr. dold: i think it's fair to say that washington has a spending problem. republicans and democrats alike have overspent over the years. in the past four years washington has spent over $5 trillion of taxpayer money that

we don't have. the degree of how much this actually means to the american public i think is uncomprehensible. most people that i talk to say that's a heck of a lot of money. i talk about the deficit of $1.5 trillion that we spent this last year and they say, i just think it's a lot of money. works to be about $3.4 million a minute in deficit spending. but if we take eight zeros off of these numbers to put it in perspective for the american family, i think it gives them a good idea what their budget would look like. annual family income would be $22,080. the family spent would be $27 ,080. new credit debt would be $8,000. the outstanding balance is $155,000. and the total discretionary budget cuts that were put in for 2011 for this family, $398. madam speaker, that's what

we're facing. we must pass a budget that takes the steps that's necessary to rein in the out-of-control spending that our country has today, put ourselves on a path to economic prosperity. we have no other choice. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine seek recognition? massachusetts. ms. tsongas: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tsongas: tomorrow is the anniversary of the landmark health care reform bill signed by president obama. it benefits women who for years faced discriminatory practices and borne higher health care costs simply as a result of their gender. because of the new law, women can no longer be denied coverage or charged more for such pre-existing conditions as breast or cervical cancer, pregnancy or of all things being a victim of domestic abuse. women no longer have to share the costs of critical and

potentially life-saving preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies. this not only makes care more equitable but it helps reduce the cost of care by ensuring that many diseases are protected early or prevented through their onset through vaccinations and through regular screenings. many advances as a result of health care reform are already making a difference in the lives of women across this country. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, on sunday, al qaeda terrorists viciously gunned down american joel. joel grew up in lancaster county, pennsylvania, and was a football star. and he leaves behind a wife and two young sons who lived with him in yemen. joel worked as a teacher at the international training

development center which focused on getting vocational training to the poor. joel's a christian, but he was not in the country to prophetalize. the organization he worked for is staffed by both christians and muslims and has worked in the country for over 40 years. the people of yemen are appalled by this violence. hundreds of activists took to the streets yesterday to demand justice for the killers. they carried photos of joel and chanted, yemen is not a place for terrorism, and we love you, joel. joel selflessly served the poor in a country far from home. he'll be dearly missed by his family and by the people he came to serve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> madam speaker, can i ask for order? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members and staff are advised to take their conversation off the floor. and the gentleman from virginia is recognized.

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, yesterday by one vote the republican budget committee passed a fend for yourself budget that would give darwinism a bad name. mr. connolly: it breaks a bipartisan compromise not even a year old. it voucherizes medicare and in effect jeopardizing health care for millions, tens of millions of american seniors. it essentially guts medicaid, jeopardizing nursing home care for millions more. it block grants the safety net programs led by food stamps, threatening to reverse the progress, decades' old progress in lowering poverty and malnutrition rates in america. this is a budget that needs to be rejected, madam chairman. it is a budget that would make charles darwin blush. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. poe: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, the nationalized health care bill will soon go before the supreme court. the issue -- does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force americans to buy government ordained and approved health insurance or else? or else face the wrath and punishment of government. the government does not have the authority to force citizens to buy any product, whether it is health insurance, a car or a box of doughnuts. if the supreme court allows this government invasion of choice, what is next? if the government, under the guise it knows best, is it going to force citizens to buy only government-approved green cars, only government houses, only government food? the health care individual mandate is a denial of liberty. yes, we need to fix health care, but does anyone really want to turn over the nation's health care to the government? the government seldom does

anything better, and if you like the compassion of the i.r.s., the efficiency of the post office and the confidence of fema, you will love the unconstitutional nationalized health care bill. and that's just the way it is. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. rent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: madam speaker, i rise this morning to thank the many persons across the length and breadth of this country who have spoken up with reference to the injustice that has occurred in florida. with reference to the yng man, trayvon martin. i want young man, trayvon martin. i want to single out two people, msnbc's morning joe. when he spoke this morning i literally had tears to well in my eyes as he took a strong position on this injustice.

i beg that others would do likewise. i would also like to thank the reverend al sharpton. he has lost his mother and i along with other people of good will would like to extend our condolences and our sympathies, but i am so grateful to reverend sharpton. he has indicated that he will be at the rally tonight in sanford, florida, and i thank him for what he has done and is doing. may god continue to bless you, reverend. and i look forward to being there with you. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. green: i would. mr. conyers: i'd like to proudly associate myself with your remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are advised to address their comments to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 591 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5. will the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to improve patient access to health care services and provide improvemented medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, march 21, 2012, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendments recommended by the committee on

energy and commerce and the judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-18 is adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall being in order except those printed in house report 112-416. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, 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 the opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 11-416. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: i have an amendment at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 112-416, offered by mr. woodall of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 591, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you very much, madam chairman. my amendment's a very straightforward amendment. before i actually talk about the text of it i'll want to speak about the real accomplishment of my friend from georgia who is the sponsor of the underlying legislation, h.r. 5. "washington times" did an article on this congress and called it one of the most ineffective congresses in history because they look at how many laws we passed. but then they went on and looked at how many days of debate we had. how many votes we had. how many issues that were important to the american people have we been able to expose in this congress that we have not been able to expose in congress before congress before congress before congress in the past. and madam chair, that's what we have today. this bill introduced by my good

friend from georgia, gives the american people an opportunity to discuss something that is on every single family's mind in this country when it comes to health care, and that is controlling the cost of medical malpractice litigation. in this body i'm sure we could disagree about the myriad ways there are to control it, but we can agree i suspect, man and woman, democrat and republican, it has to be controlled. i thank my friend from georgia for having the courage and stick-to-itiveness to bring this bill to the floor after so many years of silence on this issue. madam chair, my amendment simply strikes the findings sections of the bill. as you know findings are nonbinding parts of the legislation that speak to the intent of congress. this issue that is again such a passionate one, not just for the 435 members of this house, but for the 300 million americans across this country, i choose to let the legislation speak for itself. this legislation has been carved

out with state's rights provisions in it to make sure that states have the flexibility that they need. it's been carved out with the input of physicians from attorneys, from families, from providers, all across the board. so my amendment, madam speaker, would not change the substance of the bill but simply eliminate the findings section to allow the substance of the bill to speak for itself. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: i rise in opposition to the woodall amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: i thank the speaker. we are striking the findings by striking statements of constitutional authority for the bill, the amendment recognizes that many members of the house question congress' constitutional authority to pass

h.r. 5. so for that reason my colleagues, the findings are all important. supporters of states' rights ought to take the next step and eliminate the section of the bill that preempts state law. indeed, many supporters of the underlying bill spent years arguing the decisions about health care are fundamentally prerogatives of the state. and so i have only 18 conservative or republican scholars and leaders that agree with me that include the heritage foundation, i'll put all these in the record, the virginia attorney general, mr. cuche nellie -- cuccinelli, the

constitutional law professor at georgetown law center, the distinguished senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, our colleagues, and i'm proud of judge ted poe of texas. our colleague from nebraska, lee terry. former judge louie gohmert in particular. ron paul. all -- the founder of the tea party nation, judson philips. it goes on and on where we are all in agreement that the findings are indeed critical and ought to be left in the bill. to take the findings out is incredible because we say that

the federal government shouldn't be involved. it's a state matter. and tort law is itself a state matter. so for those reasons, madam speaker, i am pleased to represent a bipartisan group of members and scholars that very strenuously object to the findings being removed in this woodall amendment. i return the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. conyers: yes, ma'am. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: could i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has three minutes remaining. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: to say that as a freshman in this body, madam chair, i have had to learn a few things. over 15 months here serving in this body. what i have learned is that i haven't been able to get every

bill that i want out of this house the exact way i want it when it leaves here. it's been much to my chagrin. i thought i was going to be able to come here and make every bill be perfect before it leaves here. not only can i not make it perfect before it goes but then i have to deal with the united states senate. that's proved to be the most complicated part of this process. there absolutely, as the gentleman has hitsed, folks who have concerns -- listed, folks who have concerns about the underlying nature of this bill, but if not for this gingrey bill, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation at all. if not for the courage of folks to step out on the ledge and begin this conversation, we wouldn't be able to have it at all. if we are to advance the cause of litigation reform in this country, if we are to control the inaccessibility of health care that comes from rising costs, then we have to be willing to come to the floor of this house and have the kind of debates that my friend from georgia has made possible today. that's true. i may disagree with some of the

ways that we have gotten here. by striking the findings, we make no conclusions today about why we are here, but we make the certain conclusion today if we don't begin this process, we will never bring it to conclusion. if we don't have this discussion today, madam speaker, we will never solve these issues. i would be happy to yield to the ranking member. mr. conyers: i thank you for your courtesy. as a new member as you -- and we welcome you to this body, why would we strike all the findings from h.r. 5? mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. i thank the ranking member for his question. and that's a good way to conclude, madam chair. the reason is, because the language of the bill speaks for itself. the language of the bill speaks for itself. when this bill passes the house today, madam chair, we will have the u.s. house of representatives on record about

solutions to the malpractice challenges that face this nation. there is no need to be on the record today, madam chair, about all of the different ways that we got here, because i might disagree with my friend from georgia about how we got here. i would certainly disagree with my friend from michigan about how we got here. but what is important is that we begin to take those steps forward, madam chair, and with the removal of these findings, we are going to be able to let that language stand on its face for this house to have the free and open debate i'm looking forward to today. mr. conyers: does it preempt state law? mr. woodall: maintaining my time, madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, may we have a record vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman has requested a record vote.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in house report 112-416. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon rise? miss bonamici: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 112-416, offered by miss bonna beachy of -- ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon, miss bonamici, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oregon. miss bonamici: it simply requires the secretary of health and human services to submit every report to congress detailing the effect that the tort reform provisions in this bill would have on health care premiums. and delay the effective date of title 1 of the bill until that report is submitted. for years proponents of tort reform have tried to convince americans that skyrocketing

health care costs had entirely attributable to run away jury awards and greedy plaintiffs. they cite anecdotes about doctors closing their practice, refusing to deliver babies or performing surgery. but madam chair, we should not be making federal policy based on anecdotes. if recent research is any indication, the report that the secretary smits to congress under this amendment is unlikely to find that the bill have any meaningful effect on health care premiums. . adopting bills similar to those found will not impact the cost of health care nor do access to providers have improved. capping damages will drive down the cost of medical malpractice americans and doctors will pass this savings on to patients. but two yeeshes ago the c.b.o. found that malpractice insurance premiums, settlements and awards account for just a tiny fraction of total health

care expenditures. in 27 states where damages had been capped, medical malpractice premiums were not lower than states without caps. my amendment asks for data on how this will impact the cost of health care for all americans. now, i want to be very clear, no one should be compensated for a frivolous lawsuit, but there are ways to address frivolous lawsuits without infringing on the rights of those who truly have been injured by medical mistakes. what this bill does accomplish ought to frighten anyone who believes in the rights of states to govern themselves and the rights of individuals to be compensated for loss. this bill tramples over the rights of states to enact laws governing their own tort systems and it severely restricts individuals' rights to be compensated for all the losses caused by their health care providers. in my home state of oregon, for example, our supreme court has held that most statutory caps on noneconomic damages are unconstitutional. and oregon is not alone.

at least 12 other states have some constitutional prohibition against these types of restrictions. this bill not only overrides state laws and constitutions governing punitive and noneconomic damage awards. it also addresses states' statute of limitations, pleading standards, attorney fee provisions and joint loiblet, but it does not stop -- joint liability, but it does not stop there. although this is supposed to be medical malpractice reform, it includes product liability cases against drug and device manufacturers, bad faith claims against h.m.o.'s and insurance companies and negligent suits against nursing homes and it would take away all of these state and individual rights without evidence of doing so would lower the premiums for americans. this is an unwarranted intrusion and personal liberty and a giveaway to insurance companies, so we should know if it's going to lower health care premiums. if this congress is going to enact a sweeping bill,

nullifying long-standing state law and traveling on states' constitutional rights, it's not too much to ask ourselves how this will affect american families. this amendment simply requires the secretary of health and human services to submit a report to congress with that information before title 1 of this bill takes effect. a reasonable requirement. i reserve the balance of my time. thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, i rise in opposition to the bonamici amendment. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: i rise in opposition to the bonamici amendment because it would indefinitely delay critical medical liability reforms that will save american taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and save our health care system upwards of $200 billion a year in unnecessary spending. the amendment before us would delay enactment of the tort reform outline in h.r. 5 until the secretary of health and

human services would submit a report. however, the amendment does not require the secretary to produce a report by a date certain. in fact, the secretary could simply choose to never issue a report and for ever delay the reforms at the heart of this underlying bill. regardless of what one things about h.r. 5, i do not believe it is appropriate to vest the secretary of health and human services with the authority to permanently block enactment of a law based on the inability to produce a report. i realize there are some who might disagree because they would like to provide the secretary with the authority under ipab to unilaterally dictate the medical choices of seniors. given the track record of this administration on liability reform and their failure to address the issues in obamacare, h.h.s. should not be given the power to bob and weave on this issue once again. i do find the amendment

somewhat ironic and i actually wish the author of the amendment was in congress during debate over ppaca. maybe if we had this type of amendment then we would not be saddled with the law that is taking away people's health care choices and rising their health care premiums. we were promised that the law would reduce health care premiums by $,500 a year. during debate of ppaca we knew that was true and c.b.o. told congress it was not true. what was common sense is coming to fruition now. the law has given us a $1 billion new bureaucracy and is fueling ever increasing health care and premium costs. in this case, madam chairman, this amendment is not needed because we have seen that real medical liability reform can and will reduce costs. it will stop the vicious cycle of frivolous lawsuits and defensive medicine. it will make our health care system more efficient and will

actually reduce unnecessary spending in the health care system, another thing the health care law failed to do. we do not need this amendment. with that, madam chairman -- madam speaker, i will yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the chair: the minority leader from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you, madam chair, and i thank the gentleman. madam chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment which would simply delay the implementation of what we know is a cost-savings measure to so many millions of seniors and so many millions of americans. not just seniors. madam chair, today we will vote to repeal one of ppaca's most harmful provisions, the independent payment advisory board. ipab is emblem attic of the two

-- emblematic of the two provisions about the path to quality care and how to control costs in our health care system. madam chair, the president and his party wanted a centralized board of bureaucrats to control decisions about how health care's allocated to our nation's seniors. he proposes to restrict health care choices in order to lower costs. madam chair, our american system of free enterprise and innovation and ingenuity has made our health care center the best in the world. our doctors transform dire health care conditions into promising outcomes and healthier lives. we produce the world's life-saving drugs, disease prevention regiments, biologics and devices, but ipab hamstrings the best available care for our seniors by imposes artificial constraints, arbitrary constraints on costs.

neither the president nor congressional democrats have proposed a solution to strengthen medicare. instead, the president gives 15 bureaucrats the power to make fundamental decisions about the care that seniors will have access to. not to be deterred, the president has proposed expanding this board numerous times over the past year, vastly growing the board's scope and ability to fix prices and ultimately ration care for our nation's seniors. madam chair, the president and i do agree on this -- the current medicare reimbursement system is broken, but we do not need a board of unelected bureaucrats to control costs. as we have proposed today, there is a better path forward. during the health care debate, the president agreed with our nation's doctors that defensive medicine practices are driving up costs.

yet, meaningful medical liability reform was not included in the 2,000-page health care law. madam chair, as my colleagues have proposed today, we can model medical liability reforms on state-based laws. california, texas and virginia have all implemented working solutions that drive down the cost of care. we can even propose more creative medical liability reform solutions. we are always open to new ideas and suggestions but not delay. moving forward with commonsense medical liability reforms will mean that doctors can continue serving patients. it means that injured patients will be compensated more quickly and fairly. it means health care costs will go down. madam chair, you don't need a new rationing board to save $3 billion. you simply need to enact liability reform policies that are so common sense in states

like california and others that have had them on the books for decades. when the entire medical community stands opposed to an idea, i would hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the president would listen. obama care's ipab is not the solution our seniors are expecting us to deliver. our seniors deserve better. madam chair, i thank dr. phil row gingrey for sponsoring the repeal of ipab act. under their leadership, our house committees are advancing policies that will deliver the quality of health care the american people deserve. and with that i yield back. the chair: the distinguished majority leader yields back his time. the gentlelady from oregon is recognized and is advised she

has one minute, 15 seconds remaining. ms. bonamici: madam chair, i'd like to yield 15 seconds to my colleague from michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. conyers: i thank you so much. just to get the facts into this debate, i rise in strong support of the bonamici amendment and ask unanimous consent to put into the record the congressional budget office letter to chairman dreier, march 19, in which the c.b.o. estimates that enacting the provision would increase the deficit -- could i have five more second? ms. bonamici: yes, i yield five more seconds. mr. conyers: would increase the deficit if you use ipab by $3.1 billion. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired and we're operating under general leave. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: madam chair, i respect my colleague from oregon, and i know she's well meaning and well thoughtful, but i must oppose her amendment and at that time i urge my

colleagues to vote against the amendment and i'll reserve the remaining balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: thank you. madam chair, this is a reasonable amendment. it simply asks before we make sweeping federal policy that overrides state and individual rights we know what we're getting in return. i urge my colleagues to support this very reasonable amendment. thank you, madam chair, and i yield back any time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time as well. the chair: all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: madam chair, i'd like to request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 3 will not be offered.

and it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112- 416. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: madam chair, i rise for the purpose of offering an amendment. the chair: clerk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-416 offered by mr. dent of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 591, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. dent: i'm glad to support an important amendment that would address the crisis in access to emergency care by extending liability coverage to oncall and emergency room physicians. the underlying bill we're debating here today is about patient access to care. now, i recognize that the ideology may divide the house on the common bill, but this

should unite the house. bart gordon of tennessee supported this last year. mr. matheson, mr. langevin, mr. rupp ersberger, all co-sponsored -- mr. ruppersberger, all co-sponsored this amendment. they co-sponsored the original bill. there is a growing shortage of physicians and specialists willing to work in emergency rooms. we've seen it all over the country. a 2006 institute of medicine report, the future of emergency care, noted the availability of oncall specialists is an acute problem in emergency departments and trauma centers. emergency and trauma care is delivered in an inherently trying environment. physicians providing emergency care make life and death decisions with little information or time about the patients they're treating. you know, i've spoken with surgeons who've told me they dread a cold blue out of fear, out of fear of lawsuit. they want to serve these people who are coming into these emergency centers but are

fearful for their families about a lawsuit. that's what medicine has become, unfortunately, because of this out-of-control litigation system. you know, as a result, these physicians providing emergency and trauma care face extraordinary exposure to medical liability claims. 40% of hospitals say the liability situation have resulted in less physician coverage for their emergency departments. according to a report from the g.a.o., soaring medical liability premiums have led specialists to reduce or stop oncall services to emergency departments. . neuro surgery, orthopedics, general surgery are the most impacted. they also -- the services and emergency departments most frequently require. trauma centers across the country have closed. in my home state in pennsylvania, this has been a very serious problem. this is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. this amendment would protect access to emergency room care and reduce health care costs by

allowing emergency and on-call physicians who deliver services with medical liability protections. the emergency medical treatment and labor act ensures that any person who seeks emergency medical care at a covered facility is guaranteed an appropriate screening examine and stabilization treatment before transfer or discharge, regardless of their ability to pay. it is a federal mandate that protects all of our citizens, the insured and uninsured alike. this amendment will provide a backstop for the doctors who provide these critical services. specifically, the amendment will ensure medical services funnished by a hospital, emergency department, or physician or on-call provider under contract with a hospital or emergency department pursuant to the mandate provide the same liability coverage currently extended to community health centers and health professionals who provide medicaid services at free clinics. this amendment will not impact the rights of individuals who

have been harmed to seek redress. what this amendment will do is ensure medical professionals are available to provide critical, timely, lifesaving emergency and trauma medical care to all americans, when and where it is needed. please join myself and representative sessions in supporting this amendment. an accident never happens to any of us, heaven forbid, we want to be sure there are people in those emergency rooms ready to treat us with nothing on their mind but saving lives and not lawsuits. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: i rise in strong opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you. to my colleague, mr. dent, hold up. you're giving complete immunity to hospitals, physicians, providers, for any emergency

activity. you want to do away with all liability whatsoever because it's an emergency room? of course you don't. but this amendment requires the federal government to pay for the medical errors committed and denies our government any ability to address or reprimand those who commit medical errors. you don't want to do that. you don't want to go that far. the federal government would be responsible for all occurrences of negligence in an emergency room. please, 98,000 patients die every year due to preventable medical errors. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: members are advised to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. dent: madam chair, very briefly in answer to my colleague's comments, i want to say very briefly this does not waive liability. it simply says that when care is federally mandated under empala there will be federal liability protection provided to those providing the care. that's only fair. people still can bring action but there will be federal liability protection as there should be because this care is being required under federal law. i think it's completely reasonable. at this time i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: but what we are doing in the amendment is to provide immunity to all hospitals and physicians. and requires the federal government to pay for medical errors committed by them.

look, we have 98,000 patients dying every year cure to preventable medical errors. i'm not slamming the dogs and the hospitals. i'm saying -- the docs and the hospitals. i'm saying that we don't want to provide complete immunity. this dent amendment, madam speaker, does just that. it provides complete immunity and so i'm asking my colleagues to please slow down and realize that irreparable harm due to negligence in the emergency room, and we've got pages and pages of examples, would be not subject to adjudication because of this amendment. it's a very dangerous amendment.

it goes way too far. it's overbroad. and i urge my colleagues to carefully examine the consequences of this provision. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 30 seconds remaining. mr. dent: the only thing i'd like to say in response once again is this amendment only applies, immunity, only provides to care provided under empala, that's federally mandated. others would not be given this exemption. only federally mandated care. at this time i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. he has two minutes remaining. mr. conyers: thank you. madam speaker, this amendment would actually lower the incentive to practice safe medicine. and i say this on careful examination.

i'm surprised that my colleague, the leader on the other side himself. would be silent on this provision because it shows hospitals, even physicians already covered by private insurance, and physicians working in an emergency room setting, will never be held accountable when they wrongfully injure their patient. that is my only reservation and objection to what is otherwise an honorably intended revision of this measure. hospitals and emergency room departments are not held accountable for medical errors, and for negligence, then they

have no incentive to offer quality care or higher -- hire competent physicians. please, i beg you, to carefully examine the dangers impliesity in the dent-sessions amendment. i return the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania for his remaining 15 seconds. mr. dent: in conclusion, this amendment has bipartisan support. our former colleague, bart gordon, was a co-sponsor. who introduced this bill along with me last session, mr. langevin is a co-sponsor, mr. ruppersberger. it makes sense. make sure our citizens have access to emergency care should they ever need it. at this time i urge support of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to --

the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report number 112-416. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the table. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 112-416, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 591, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. mr. gosar: madam chair, i rise foe address the house today in support of my amendment to h.r. 5 to amend the mccarran-ferguson act. this act exemmingts the business of insurance from many federal antitrust laws. in this modern day and age it is hard to see why this exemption still persists. one of the original reasons to carve this exemption for the industry dates all the way back to 1945, was that insurance

companies needed to share actuarial information in order to balance risk when setting premiums. however, since 1945 our federal law has evolved to include safe harbors to prevent companies to share this data as needed. i believe the violations of antitrust law cannot always be dealt with on the state level anymore. as cash strapped states lack the resources to enforce the law against these large multistate insurance companies. therefore it is time for this exemption to be repealed so we can empower health care companies to compete aggressively for the consumer dollar. increased options empower patients. lowering the cost of health insurance is a goal we should all share and that is why the house passed a very similar measure, h.r. 4626, with over 400 votes in 2010. there is one key difference between h.r. 4626 and this amendment.

a difference of which i am proud. my amendment includes a prohibition on class action lawsuits in federal court against these health insurance companies. the f.t.c. should have the power to investigate bad actors in the health insurance industry, but it helps no one if these companies or any american businesses get mired in lawsuits that will cost millions. class action lawsuits often result in big bucks in attorneys' fees for greedy trial attorneys while leaving only pennies in the hands of plaintiffs who were allegedly wronged in the first place. for example, the cobell settlement, 15 years ago a group of native americans sued the government for mismanagement of their funds and won a $3.4 billion settlement overwhelm to find out that their attorneys were petitions the judge for over $200 million in fees. this is outrageous. when the poorest of poor are wronged in this country and awarded a settlement, they shouldn't have to split pennies

amongst themselves when the lawyers walk away with a big fat check. that is the spirit of my amendment. i am pleased to see this house ready to pass this significant tort reform today and encourage my colleagues to support my amendment as well as the underlying bill. thank you again. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: it is my position that the good that this does is a poison pill. the good is consumers would also benefit from a repeal of mccarran-ferguson. we a lulet you -- salute you. but the poison bill is that this measure will ban class actions on a claim for violation of antitrust law which is the

cleverest way of ending antitrust law. unless you have a class action, well my doctor congressman is not a lawyer, but without class actions you can't bring a claim, because nobody's going to file suit on a $30 issue, a million people suing for $30 each. so it's a poison pill and i'd like to yield to the gentleman who had an amendment that had huge bipartisan support, mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for -- mr. conyers: as much time as he may consume. the chair: as much time as he may consume. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. we had at the end of last congress a tremendous bipartisan vote, 406-19, on repealing

straight up the antitrust immunity, the insurance industry. the american people, no matter where they are on the affordable health care act, agree on one thing, insurance companies should not be able to get together and collude to either exclude people from coverage or drive up prices. yet they do. they have an exemption under a law from the 1940's. now, what the gentleman is offering found pretty good, but it won't get us there because 90% of the antitrust cases are private. and almost every single one of those cases is a class action. so if you preclude class action, you can pretend you are being tough with the insurance industry while you can wake at night and say don't worry about it because there won't be any litigation under this and you'll still be able to escape, collude. and think of the context in what we are doing. we are talking about ipab today.

they have already voted to repeal the entire affordable health care act. that means no more prestrickses, the dirty little practice where you have been paying your premium for years and you get sick the insurance says, sorry, we are not going to renew your polcy. that's been outlawed. they are going to do away with the prohibitions on age discrimination. they are going to do away with the prohibitions on pre-existing conditions. now we are going to have an insurance industry that is essentially free from antitrust law, that can take away your policy when you get sick, discriminate against you because you are old, discriminate against you because you're sick or you have been sick. and it would take away the protections and review of excessive rate increases. if we were doing a straight up, take away their antitrust immunity. make them play by the rules except for professional sports who are exemption from antitrust law, that would be fine. let's not have this phony fig leaf so you can wink and nod to the insurance industry and say, hey, don't worry about it, it

won't have any impact. we can say to consumers we are with them. with that i -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. . mr. gosar: what we did here in repealing mccarran-ferguson is the f.t.c., is the f.t.c., is the f.t.c. and the department of justice. privately you are right. without the repeal of mccarran-ferguson there is more coming from the private aspect, but that's because we have limited the federal oversight and the f.t.c. and the department of justice. this compromise is weighted very carefully to make sure we get back to balance, both federal and state, and does not oversee the states' rights as well. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: we are here

debating an overwhelming proposition offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, which would have collected this problem so beautifully. but now comes the poison pill which says no more class actions. if you can't blame class actions in this matter, then there's no way people with small valid crames can go into court -- claims can go into court and sue for $40. now, i think most people understand this without going to law school. if you eliminate class actions, you have effectively destroyed the mccarran-ferguson repeal that we are bragging about.

so it's kind of undercover scheme. we pretend we're doing something good. we ignore defazio's overwhelmingly bipartisan supported provision and we let the insurance company through it and they live to continue the vial practices that have been revealed and discussed in this debate. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: once again, i want to make sure that everybody understands that you are giving federal oversight of collusion and monopoly. in class action law suits is you are not giving it all away but limiting the vast improprieties. this is carefully manipulated so we move the ball down the field and it balances it out with competition and having some oversight with over the

jurisdiction and judgments that are impugned with class action. class action has gotten way out of line and most american people do understand that classification. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. and those in favor will signify by saying aye. opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes is it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-416. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. stearns: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the chair: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-416 offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 591, the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, and a member opposed, will each

control five minutes. at this time the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: mr. matheson and i have an amendment today. this would allow trained professional medical people to volunteer across state lines to assist in presidentially declared federal disaster sites. my colleagues, in the aftermath of hurricane katrina, we saw firsthand how much of a demand there is for trained professionals at disaster sites and how there is need to provide a liability protection for these very experienced individuals. according to the council of state governments, the most pressing need immediately after katrina was the availability of medical volunteers. however, out-of-state practitioners faced the real possibility of noncoverage under their medical malpractice policies. those who volunteer and treat the sick are at risk of

violating existing statutes and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liabilities. baton rouge newspaper, the "the advocate," ran a story in september of 2005 that talked about a dr. mark pulmutter who was in the midst of giving a woman's chest compressions when fema asked him to stop because of issues of liability protection. cnn ran a story about a doctor who was evacuated to the new orleans airport. the doctor was amazed to see hundreds of sick people and wanted to help them. he wanted to apply his professional talents and heal the sick but was prevented from doing so because of legal liability. "they told us, you know, you could help us by mopping the floor." and that's what he was forced to do. so he mopped the floor while people died all around him. what was the cost of inaction because of the society we have? it's incidents like these, my colleagues. that's why i introduce the good

samaritan act. it's a very simple bill and its foundation is for this amendment to the path act. this amendment would allow medical professionals to volunteer at disaster sites. it would provide limited civil liability protection to medical volunteers who act on a good faith effort. this is limited protection. it still allows victims to sue for serious acts such as criminal misconduct, reckless misconduct or gross negligence. it does not cover criminal acts by health volunteers. you shouldn't have someone that spent years in college, years in medical school, through res. concernsy, through years of a practical tigs. this is wrong and my amendment would correct that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: i rise in opposition to the stearns amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, madam

speaker. the problem here is we don't have a problem. the 1997 law which is called the volunteer protection act, which i don't recall being mentioned, already provides immunity to all volunteers. not just doctors. to everybody. all volunteers. and has worked very effectively to ensure that nonprofit or government enits -- entities will be responsible for background checks. i remind my colleagues of the 10th amendment to the constitution which is violated in h.r. 5 which preserves our

system of federalism that allows states to legislate their own state tort laws and the qualifications of health care professions. what could be more simple than that? this is one of the least debated provisions of our great constitution. and so amendments that limit liability of health care professionals by our congress and provides a virtual blanket immunity to any individual for any harm while acting in a volunteer capacity during a disaster violates the 10th amendment to the constitution. madam speaker, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, how much time do i have left on my side?

the chair: the gentleman from florida has two minutes and 15 seconds remaining and the gentleman from michigan has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: the one thing i would say to the gentleman, this is not unlimited. as i pointed out, there is provisions to allow for stipulations. i recognize the co-sponsor on the democrat side, mr. matheson from utah, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. matheson: thank you, madam chair. i rise in strong support of this amendment as i do the underlying bill. the amendment before us will provide much-needed liability protections to medical professionals to ensure they will do what they're trained to do which is save lives. as mr. stearns indicated, in the aftermath of hurricane katrina, it became clear that a uniformity of good samaritan laws is needed in this country. in several instances qualified and certified physicians and other medical professionals from across the country were turned away from providing much-needed care to victims from this disaster. even when it was plainly

apparent that the medical resources in the communities that were affected by the disaster were far beyond the capacity to give emergency care. volunteers shouldn't fear unnecessary lawsuits and above all else should not be turned away due to uncertainty about liability protections. i want to thank my friend and colleague, mr. stearns, for his work and partnership on this amendment, this commonsense measure to provide sensible protections to those good samaritans to help those struck by disaster. it's an amendment we should all support. i urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i rise a question to my good friend from florida. why don't we just -- if you feel strongly about this, why don't we modify the volunteer protection act of 1997 rather

than to go into the business of a constitutional violation by changing all of the state laws this wholesale limitation of liability? why not do it in a more appropriate way which we would be bound to consider with you? and i yield to the gentleman if he cares to make a comment on that. the chair: does the gentleman from florida wish to -- mr. stearns: is the gentleman yielding me time? mr. conyers: yes. mr. stearns: are you yielding me time? mr. conyers: believe it or not. mr. stearns: mr. conyers, the point is this is a federal disaster and a federal disaster like katrina in which the federal government is involved, we need to have a federal bill. mr. conyers: i say to my

colleague from florida, this is a federal bill enacted in 1997 and that's the one i would urge you to want to join with me and others to modify if there is a problem. what you're doing by stearns-matheson, is you are now changing the law in all 50 states without going through the volunteer protection act over which we have jurisdiction . and that's the reason that i urge my colleagues that there is no need to up end existing state laws to provide unnecessary immunity. and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i just say that the 50 state laws are not allowing a physician to help mop the floors. i yield to the chairman of the

constitution subcommittee of the house judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. franks: this would help volunteers in disaster response for their fellow human beings. rescue efforts can be chaotic. government agencies cannot always help everyone effectively. many state tort laws, including the state hardest hit by hurricane katrina, louisiana, are unclear as to who is covered under state good samaritan protection. madam chair, this is a country of good samaritans. we should not offer impediments to them and i think this amendment supports it and i support it with the strongest conviction. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, that's what we're doing under the volunteer protection act is protecting our volunteers, our

good citizens that come forward . please, i would like to focus on the amendment here that provides a lesser degree of liability protection while allowing weaker state standards to remain in place. . what we need to do is to preserve our system of federalism and support the volunteer protection act which is constitutional, which does not violate the prerogative of the states to manage their -- and legislate on their own tort laws, and determine the qualifications of health care professionals.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment there the gentleman from florida . so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from florida requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-416 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1, mr. woodall of georgia. amendment number 2, ms. bonamici of oregon. amendment number 6, mr. stearns of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. and the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report number 112-416 by

the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, on which further proceedings had been postponed and the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the the clerk will designate reeath the amendment cloim amendment number 1, offered by mr. woodall of georgia. the chair: recorded vote has been requested and those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 173. the two presenting vote. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-416 by the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-416 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 228. voting present, one. and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-416 by the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-416, offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 251, the nays are 157. voting present is one. the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 5 and reports the bill back to the house -- as amended back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5 and pursuant to

house resolution 591, reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor please say aye. those in favor please say no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. loebsack of iowa moves to recommit the bill h.r. 5 to the committees on ways and means and energy and commerce with instructions to report the same to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end the following new section, section 203, prohibiting elimination of medicare program and increase costs or reduced benefits to seniors and people with disabilities. a, the repeal of section 1899-a of the social security 42 u.s.c. 1395 k.k.k. pursuant to section 202 of this act shall not with respect to the medicare program under title 18 of the social security act be construed as

furthering or promoting any of the following. one, eliminating guaranteed health insurance benefits for seniors or people with disabilities under such program. two, establishing a medicare voucher plan that provides limited payments to seniors or people with disabilities to purchase health care in the private health insurance market or otherwise increasing medicare beneficiary costs. b, the repeal of section 1899 c-2-a-ii of the social security act 42 u.s.c. 1395 k.k.k. c-2 a.i.i. pursuant to section 202 of this act shall not with respect to seniors or people with disabilities be construed as providing for or promoting any of the following. one, rationing health care. two, raising revenues or premiums for seniors or people with disabilities under section 1818 of the social security act. section 1818-a of such act.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will dispense. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: objection to dispensing of the reading of the resolution? without objection. the reading is suspended. the house will come to order. the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. loebsack: mr. speaker, while i oppose the underlying bill, i'm offering this final amendment on a topic i know is important to all of us here in this chamber. our nation's seniors. i grew up in poverty and my grandmother took care of my siblings and me during my childhood. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. mr. loebsack: she was right on

social security survivor benefits to put food on the table and because -- relied on social security benefits to put food on the table. because of her i know firsthand how important programs like social security and medicare are to our seniors. in my grandmother's case, it meant the difference between putting food on the table and my family going hungry. before these historic programs were enacted, -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. . the gentleman may continue. mr. lobiondo: far too many -- mr. loebsack: they couldn't access the appropriate medical care to keep them safe and healthy. these important safety net programs have been successful in lowering senior poverty rates in america. just like my grandmother. today's seniors made sacrifices big and small to pave the way for a better life for future

generations. our country is what it is today because of them. that is why i believe that seniors who worked hard all of their lives should have access to the best medical care available. we need to care for them just like they cared for us. if my colleagues join me in passing this amendment, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted on. it would ensure that the underlying bill does not eliminate guaranteed health insurance benefits for seniors or people with kiss abilities on medicare -- disabilities on medicare. it would also ensure that the underlying bill does not lead to a voucher system, rationed health care, raise premiums and co-payments or otherwise restrict medicare benefits. i recently held senior listening sessions around my district in iowa. when i talked to iowa seniors i heard far too hauven that many are -- often that manye meet. that is unacceptable. no hardworking american should

ever have to retire into poverty, and they certainly shouldn't see their hard-earned savings wiped out because of medical bills. during my listening sessions i heard time and again from seniors about how much they rely on medicare in order to stay healthy and stay afloat financially. seniors' medical and prescription drug costs already eat up a portion of their income and many of them are stretched thin even without rising prices, utility costs and an economic downturn that has hit savings hard. they pay attention to what is happening here in washington. we should all be reminded of that, and they're upset about proposals to cut and weaken medicare. our seniors did not get us into the fiscal mess in the first place that we're in today, and i think it's unfair to punish them for washington's irresponsible behavior. they cannot and they should not bear more of this burden. unfortunately the republican plan for medicare would force

seniors to do just that. it would end the medicare guarantee, replacing it with a voucher system. the voucher would not keep up with health care inflation, and it would force seniors to pay more and more of their health care costs out of pocket. in these tough economic times, we need to find ways to be more efficient while maintaining quality of care. there are ways to do that such as moving medicare from a fee-based to a value-based payment system, something i supported all along i have been in this congress. however, the republican plan for medicare ignores these options and instead undermines traditional medicare while doing nothing to reduce health care costs. this would shift costs to beneficiaries for low-income seniors like my grandmother was, enacting this plan would be disastrous. that's why my final amendment would ask the members of this chamber simply to uphold their commitment to america's seniors

from my listening -- america's seniors. from my sessions, i know that -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. mr. loebsack: they don't want higher costs and don't want reduced benefits and don't want new program. they want to keep medicare the way it is, a guaranteed benefit they can count on when they need it. seniors in my district and across the country know we have big problems, but we can strengthen and preserve medicare without ending the guarantee, a guarantee, by the way, that is neither republican nor democratic, but it's an american guarantee, and i think we all need to keep that in mind and remember that. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues in the house to join me in voting for this final amendment, to preserve and to strengthen the most successful health insurance program our nation has ever created, namely

medicare. our grandparents have stood by us, folks. i think it's time that we stand by them. and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. roe: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit and strongly support h.r. 5. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. roe: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, 2 1/2 years ago in this body we debated the affordable care act, and i remember being part of that debate here on the house floor, and part of that debate was to increase access to american citizens and to maintain the physician-patient relationship. i have a letter here that was signed by 75 of us, both democrats and republicans, opposing a part because in the house version of the affordable care act, the independent payment advisory board was not there. and this bill is very simple. h.r. 5 is to repeal the independent payment advisory board and to vote for malpractice reform, a very

simple bill, one that should be easy to support. let's just discuss and see what occurred. independent payment advisory board, most seniors don't know about it, after $500 billion has been taken out to pay for a new benefit, the independent payment advisory board is 15 unelected bureaucrats appointed by the president and approved by the senate to oversee medicine. i practiced for over 31 years in tennessee and my kerp is i've already seen two -- concerns is i've already seen two examples of this. the first is the sustainable growth rate, a formula based on how to pay doctors in medicare. this was established in 1997, and each year, almost every year since then, the congress has had the ability to change this because, why? we were afraid if reimbursements to physicians were cut, access to our patients would be denied. and let's look at what's going on right now. two weeks ago in this body we

extended the s.g.r. for 10 months, preventing a 20% cut to physicians. as a doctor what would mean in providing care to my patients? well, what this would mean is you couldn't afford to see the patients. and with pba, a formula -- and with ipab, a formula based on spending, not quality or access, what would happen, i believe, is this would occur, this 27%, at the end of this year a 31% cut which would be catastrophic to our medicare patients. so it's a very simple bill. we don't want washington-based bureaucrats geting in between the doctor-patient relationship. decisions should not be made by health insurance and not 15 bureaucrats in washington. it should be made between a doctor and their family. the second part of this bill is very simply medical malpractice reform. when i began my medical malpractice in tennessee, my premiums was $5,000.

when i left, $74,000 a year. and during that time from 1975 until i left to come here there's basically one insurance company in tennessee and over half the premium dollars that were paid during that time went to attorneys, not to the injured party. less than 40 cents of the malpractice premium dollar in that state have gone to people who've actually been injured. it's a very bad system. the tort system we have for medical liability now is a very bad system. it needs to be reformed. no one's ever argued about paying actual damages. no one's ever argued about paying medical bills. it's the unintended consequences of this bill that have run the costs up at no value to patients. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion

to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is -- mr. loebsack: i call for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 180, the nays are 229 with two voting present. the motion is not adopted.

the sque on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. >> mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is 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, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 223. the nays are 181 with four voting present. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion 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 speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule of the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i'm pleased to yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: thank you. i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for

legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, and last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. no votes are expected in the house on friday. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. the house will also consider h.r. 3309, federal communications commission process reform act, authored by congressman greg walden of oregon. and the house will consider and pass a budget resolution. mr. speaker, we also expect to take further action on our nation's infrastructure with authority expiring at the end of next week. finally, i'm hopeful that the senate will clear the house's bipartisan jobs act bill today. i look forward to the president

signing into law. i thank the gentleman from maryland and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information with respect to the legislation that will be considered next week. i note that he talks about the highway bill, the infrastructure bill that the -- that is pending. obviously we had expected to consider that bill on the house floor on our side, at least, we are -- our expectation is that it was going to be a number of weeks ago. it has not come here. as i expect we are talking about an extension of some period of time. we are concerned that you rightfully, personally and as a party made it very clear that certainty was an important aspect of growing our economy. that's a proposition on which i agree. i think you're absolutely right. i think that we need to create certainty and clearly we need to create jobs.

i said this morning, mr. leader, to the press that i'm sure you get it as well that the public says to me, when are you guys going to start working together, when are you going to get something done in a bipartisan way. the senate has done that, i say to my friend. the senate has done it in an overwhelming fashion. they had 74, there would have been 75, but mr. lautenberg was absent, was for the bill. 3/4 of the senate voted for what was a very bipartisan bill and as a matter of fact, half the senate republicans essentially voted for that bill. it had, as you know, a technical flaw in the bill and that it had revenues which need to be initiated in the house of representatives. representative tim bishop of

new york has introduced the senate bill which has overwhelming support in the united states senate and very frankly in my view would have at least 218 votes in this house, at least 218 votes in this house if it were put on the floor. the speaker has said in the past that he is committed to letting the house work its will. obviously referring to open amendments process. but obviously if a bill doesn't come to the floor, we have no opportunity either to amend or to vote. that's been one of our problems, of course, with the jobs bill that we hope would have been brought to the floor that the president proposed. that has not been to the floor. i ask my friend, rather than continue to delay, and both sides have done that on the highway bill, to give that

competence of which you have spoken and others on your side of the aisle have spoken i think absolutely correctly, in order to give the confidence that we can in fact act, that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, i would ask my friend whether or not he would be prepared to bring, as the majority leader, to bring the bishop bill to the floor which again is the senate bill, supported by 75 members of the united states senate, half of the republican caucus in the senate, and which will give some degree of certainty for a highway program that clearly is also a jobs bill. which will have an impact on almost two million jobs and maybe another million jobs along the way. we think that's the way that would be good for our country to proceed and it would send a message because i think it would

get bipartisan support if we -- if you brought it to the floor. that it would send a good pleanl to the country, that -- message to the country, that, yes, from time to time we can work together. very frankly, mr. leader, if we did that it would be consistent with every transportation bill that we've passed since 1956 under dwight eisenhower where we worked together in a bipartisan fashion. this is the first time that i've experienced a partisan divide. i mean, people have had differences of opinion. a partisan divide on the highway bill. as you know, senator boxer and senator inhalf came together and agreed. that's a pretty broad ideological spectrum of the united states senate. they came together, they agreed and they led the effort to pass that bipartisan bill. i would very much hope that, mr. majority leader, that you could bring that bill to the floor and see whether or not in fact it could pass. i think that would be good for the country and i yield to my

friend for his comments. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i would respond by saying to him that, no, i'm not prepared to bring that bill to the floor because i differ with him in his assumption that there would be enough bipartisan support to pass that bill in the house. and from all that i know about what's in the senate bill, there is a lot of disagreement over how that bill was constructed as far as house members are concerned and i would say to the gentleman, our plan is very clear. we have been outspoken on this, we do not want to disrupt the flow of federal transportation dollars which is why we'll be bringing to the floor next week a bill to provide for an extension of 90 days so that perhaps, as the gentleman would like, as would i, we could come together as two bodies and two parties on an agreement to provide more certainty. but as to the gentleman's suggestion that we need to be

doing this to be consistent with what has been done historically, i would say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i that we are in very, very difficult economic times. we have never faced the kind of problems that we face today as a country from a fiscal standpoint. and unfortunately transportation funding is no different. we're just out of money. and so we're trying to take the approach that most american families and businesses would take and that is to try and spend within our means, to come up with some innovative ways to look at transportation needs and demands in the future and our being able to meet them. and we look forward to working with the gentleman, mr. speaker, in a bipartisan fashion to try and affect that end. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. but i will say again to the gentleman, you know, we've been down this path before. we've been down this path before where the senate was able to reach a bipartisan agreement on

legislation very important to jobs, the economy and to the confidence of america. and that bipartisan piece of legislation would have enjoyed the support i think certainly the overwhelming majority, almost unanimous support on our side and a bipartisan agreement. i don't mean a democratic proposal from the senate but a bipartisan agreement that came from the senate. and that dealt of course with payroll taxes, extending those. and ultimately we did that. we took that bill. but i would say to my friend that the speaker indicated he wanted a bill on this floor. i've been asking you for a number of weeks if it was going to come to the floor, for approximately a month now. that bill hasn't come to the floor. we all know it has to come to the floor because there's very substantial disi agreement within your party -- disagreement within your party about that bill. everybody talks about it.

we understand that. i say to my friend that he and i do have a disagreement, i think it would enjoy bipartisan support on this floor if you brought the bishop bill, the senate bipartisan bill to the floor. but the only way we're really going to be able to find that out, not by me saying i think -- you saying, i think it wouldn't, there's a very easy way to see whether it would and that is to bring it to the floor next week. the gentleman is absolutely correct, i don't think there's anybody hopefully that wants to disrupt and have literally hundreds of thousands of people thrown out of work or not have opportunities for work. we know the construction trades in particular have been very badly hit by the lack of construction that's going on. so you can have your opinion, i can have my opinion, but there is a way to determine whether or not in fact we can get bipartisan agreement and that

is, as i said, the speaker has indicated, let the house work its will. the only way the house can work its will, having been majority leader, is for the majority leader to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote, then you may be right, i may be right , but we will know, it won't have to be speculation, we will know, and if i'm right and we do pass that bill, then next week before march 31, before the expiration of the current highway authorization, we can send a bill to the president of the united states and he will sign the senate bill. we don't know that he will sign a bill that, you know, is still languishing in your committee, because we haven't seen the final parameters of that bill, because it's obviously pretty controversial on your side of the aisle. so i would hope again, if you want certainty, we have an

opportunity for certainty. we have an opportunity with a bipartisan bill that the senate's passed. i don't know why we're rejecting that bipartisanship. i know we have, as a matter of fact, the gentleman says, well, this is a unique economic time. he's right. it seems to me that's a greater argument for trying to embrace bipartisan agreement and move forward with giving certainty to the construction industry, to states, to municipalities, to counties on what is going to be available to them to plan and to pursue infrastructure projects critical to commerce and to their communities. so, i regret that the gentleman has indicated that that's not of an option that he will consider, but a short-term extension seems to be the continuation of

uncertainty, not the alaying of uncertainty. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to make another comment or not. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would just say to the gentleman, i guess we're going to agree to disagree. we're dealing with the reality that we don't have the money and we're trying to fashion a path forward that both sides can agree upon. obviously we cannot agree upon that next week with all the differences that still exist. which is why we are creating the construct of a 90-day extension, then giving us the possibility to get into conference with the senate to try and produce a longer term transportation funding bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i won't pursue it any further, mr. leader, but you've been unable to get agreement within your party on this side of the house -- of the capitol for well over a month. i hope you can get there, i hope -- i would hope you would get there in a bipartisan fashion so that mr. rahall and mr. mica could agree on a bill, which has

been my experience in the 31 years i've been here. it's not my experience this year, that hasn't happened. but almost invariabley and i think for the years you've been here you've experienced that as well. let me ask you now with respect to the budget, do you expect the budget to come to the floor you? indicated that and if so would that be wednesday? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, the gentleman is correct. we will be beginning debate on the budget wednesday and likely concluding that debate and vote on thursday. mr. hoyer: normally as you know, we've had alternatives made in order. we of course want to make in order an amendment which will guarantee that medicare will be available to our seniors and that we will not decimate medicaid which we think is appropriate for our seniors and we also want to make sure that

we have revenues that can sustain health care for seenos -- seniors, education for kids, help for our communities. will the gentleman be able to tell me whether or not in fact alternatives will be made in order by the rules committee that would be offered either by the minority ranking member of the committee and/or others as has historically been the case? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, yes, we expect that to be the case. obviously i disagree with his characterization of our budget. we are in fact saving the medicare program in a bipartisan fashion. i yield back. mr. hoyer: was there a bipartisan vote in the committee on that? i thought it was a totally partisan vote in the committee. was i incorrect on that? mr. cantor: will the gentleman

yield? mr. hoyer: yes. mr. cantor: the gentleman knows very well of what i refer to, that the disproportion at cause of our -- disproportionate cause of our deficit has to do with health care entitlements and we actually, as the gentleman knows, last year and this year are proposing a solution, a plan, that does not resolve the issue overnight. but it puts us on a pooth towards balancing the budget -- path toward balancing the budget and this year our budget chairman has worked together with the senator from oregon on the gentleman's side of the aisle in the senate to propose a solution that responds to some of the complaints about the path that was taken before. and again it is a bipartisan solution, it is a plan to save medicare and unlike the gentleman's party, nor his president, or his president, we are actually proposing a solution to the problem and

saving the program for this generation and the next. so again i am sure the gentleman disagrees with my characterization, i with his, but to answer his question, to get back on track as far as the schedule and the fashion in which these bills are going to be brought to the floor, yes, consistent with precedent, we will be allowing full substitutes to be offered on both sides of the aisle. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. last thing i would ask the gentleman, am i correct that the agreement that was reached between our parties, which led to the passage of the budget control act in a bipartisan fashion, does not reflect the subs -- substance that have agreement as it relates to the discretionary spending number for fiscal year 2013? senator mcconnell is quoted as you know as saying that was an agreement that was reached and that he expected to be pursued. he was not referring to the

action of the budget committee, but he was referring to the agreement on the discretionary number. am i correct -- am i correct that that number is not being distribute agreement that was reached in order to get a bipartisan vote on the budget control act, which we passed, which made sure that this country did not default on its debts for the first time in history, am i correct that that number is not the number that is reflected in the budget? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i respond to the gentleman by saying it is our view that the agreement reached in august at the top line was that, a cap. and we all know we've got to do something about spending in this country and the top line or 302-a within our budget resolution will reflect that top line provided in the budget resolution for the second year of the budget that we posed last year. again, weie