mr. pallone and mr. frank and myself speaking. and with that, the fishermen on the east coast need fairness from their government and this amendment will help give fairness to the commercial and recreational fishermen on the east coast of america. with that i will yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i can understand where my very good friends are coming from and they represent a lot of professional and very responsible fishermen. and i know they know what they're talking about. on the other hand, noaa does, too, and noaa has been successful. they've been successful from alaska to florida in allocating assigned limits to various fishing entities because we are losing our fishing stock. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i think there's only 15 seconds but if you take five seconds. mr. frank: when you get from alaska to florida, don't you have to pass massachusetts, new jersey and north carolina because the three of us think it's a terrible ide

mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. how many times are we going to hear about repealing the health care reform instead of having an initiative that actually creates jobs? i go out, the gentleman from georgia said, are you listening to your constituents? yes, i listen to my constituents. they tell us we should address job creation and the economy. and not constantly argue over and over again about repealing health care reform which we know is going absolutely nowhere. so when i listen, that's what i hear. jobs. the economy. not this constant repetition of repeal. i have a lot of respect for the gentleman from montana, i have to say, but he talks about completely stopping and defunding implementation. the reason that the republicans are saying that and want to defund this is because this health care reform is already working. insurers now can't drop someone's coverage when they get sick. seniors are saving money on prescription drugs. young adults to 26 are getting back on their parents' i

mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. again, the question here is whose side are you on. the only people i talked to who are against the exchanges are the big insurance companies and their representatives because they're the only ones that stand to gain by keeping the status quo and not have the exchanges. the little guy, the consumer wants the exchange. why? because he can get affordable coverage, because he can get a good benefit package, because there's transparency because he can find out what's being offered and how much it costs him and the insurance companies don't want any of that because they want to continue a business as usual, keep raising rates. now, we all know how it works. the large employers, they can go out and get group coverage but if you're an individual or a small business, it's very hard to do that. and that's why we set up the exchanges because basically it's like a larger insurance pool. and now the small business, the individual can go on the exchange and find out

mr. pallone so he can have an opportunity to speak. thank you. mr. pallone: i thank the gentleman. i'm just amazed by the extortion that i heard on the other side of the aisle tonight. basically what the republicans said is that if we -- if planned parenthood agreed not to perform abortions, then they can continue to perform their other functions, but if they insist on performing abortions, then we're going to starve them for money and they won't be able to provide contraceptives and family planning and all the other health care services for women that are so important here. to me, that is just an incredible statement because essentially what you're saying is we'll extort this. we don't really care about all these other services that they're providing. what we really care about is abortion. and if you sign on the dotted line, then you can continue to perform the other health care services, as long as you don't perform the service that is allowed under the law of the land. now, i cannot believe that was actually stated here this evening, because i know and we all know all these othe

mr. pa pallone from new jersey for the remaining minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. beach replenishment san economic engine for towns and the tourism industry. it ultimately creates jobs. and also it's based on an army corps cost-benefit analysis that says that for every $1 we spend on beach replenishment, we save $2 or $3 depending on the cost-benefit analysis that doesn't have to get paid by the tral government during a disaster. so beach replenishment actually saves the federal government money. it has to otherwise the projects are not authorized by the arbitrarilyy -- army corps of engineers. in addition to that there is no way that local municipalities would be able to afford to do this. many of them are very small, they have a few thousand people, i use my own state of new jersey as an example. so you would be cutting off any kind of beach replenishment, any kind of protection in the event of a storm and ultimately having to pay out those dollars in fema down the road. makes no sens

mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. how many times are we going to hear about repealing the health care reform instead of having an initiative that actually creates jobs? i go out, the gentleman from georgia said, are you listening to your constituents? yes, i listen to my constituents. they tell us we should address job creation and the economy. and not constantly argue over and over again about repealing health care reform which we know is going absolutely nowhere. so when i listen, that's what i hear. jobs. the economy. not this constant repetition of repeal. i have a lot of respect for the gentleman from montana, i have to say, but he talks about completely stopping and defunding implementation. the reason that the republicans are saying that and want to defund this is because this health care reform is already working. insurers now can't drop someone's coverage when they get sick. seniors are saving money on prescription drugs. young adults to 26 are getting back on their parents' i

mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to point out, again, the gentlewoman's amendment is just like the others we've heard before. it is going to completely eliminate implementation of the health care reform. because the bottom line is that if this amendment were to pass, then all of the positive things that have already gone into place in terms of discrimination or eliminating discrimination against pre-existing conditions or allowing the other discriminatory practices like lifetime or annual caps or the requirement that young people up to the age of 26 be able to get insurance coverage on their policy, all these things essentially depend on the mandate pause without the mandate, what happens is -- because without the mandate what happens is insurance companies go back to discriminatory practices -- practices. this is an effort to get rid of the health care reform. whether it's defunding it or rescinding it or whatever else we see. we know that without the man.net it's going to be

mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this resolution being offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is a waste of time and doesn't address job creation which must be the number one priority of this congress. today we are coming to the floor to spend nearly 10 hours of debate telling the committees of the house to do what they already should be doing. since january 5, when this congress was sworn in, we have not voted on one bill that will strengthen our economy or create jobs. and the republican leadership is putting together a spending bill that will cost our economy jobs. their bill makes sweeping cuts in research and development that will jeopardize america's position as a world leader in innovation. and in the state of the union, the president set the right priorities with his focus on job creation, economic recovery, debt reduction and economic opportunity for all americans. i'm here with my democratic colleagues from energy and commerce where we worked to

mr. pallone: we must out innovate, outeducate and outbuild the rest of the world. but the house republican continuing resolution will do none of that. what it accomplishes is irresponsible slashing of necessary programs, just so they can go back home and say they cut government spending. now, i'm not sure if our republican colleagues realize that actions have consequences. house republicans are going too far and sacrificing america's health, safety in the process and what makes it worse is they're offering no real plan to deal with the deficit and create jobs. madam speaker, america's competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate and keep america number one but instead this bill holds $2.5 billion in cuts to the national institutes of health representing a significant setback in cancer and other disease research. we have to fund programs like n.i.h. that are responsible for december emanating research and help in developing new drugs and devices. funding for research and development has an impact on all sectors of our work force and i want to use my home state

mr. pallone: sort of like a one-man dictatorship. i'm not sure i'm particularly interested in his opinion on this one. but beyond that and i'll follow up on my colleague from nnl, when you talk about substantive changes from the law, the whole purpose of this amendment is to basically gut the health care reform and make sure that it never takes place. and if it were to become law, if it were to be adopted, that is exactly what would happen. this has a mainly substantive impact. beyond that, what we're highlighting here is the fact that here we have the republicans saying that they're trying to save money or cut spending when in reality what they're doing with this seamed increasing the deficit -- with this amendment is increasing the deficit and making it more difficult to create jobs. so i don't see how we could ever argue, frankly, that this amendment is in order. it clearly increases the deficit. it clearly increases the budget authority. it will kill the health care reform. and that's its purpose. so i would ask that the chairman