your positions on the bill. i did want to draw your attention to this bill. bell from san jose amended his bill to reflect the governance by adding appointees from the mayor of oakland and capping the representatives, nd thaand that measure is in play. he finally got the green light from mtc. it will be in the commission as the first hurdle. you wouldn't typically expect a policy hearing this early. it depends on the pressure they bring to bear. i haven't heard of any special efforts. i would not be surprised to hear them pushing for a hearing. they would waid for other bills. we are monitoring this on a regular basis. >> ab-57? >> it is b.e.a.l.l. just a comment, the assembly transportation committee is not represented well by the bay area, with one person. susan from contra costa county. we will have to look for allies in other areas who probably don't care about this battle or concern. so it will be more difficult and i can report that amiano is on this. he started charting out the game plan to go after the b

bill. mr. president, i thank the senator from michigan and the leader and the republican leader and my chairman for allowing us to start the debate on this bill and finish our remarks. i know we will have many amendments. i just hope in the end we'll have a good bill that does satisfy everyone's needs and that we can permanently say winter is over. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to congratulate senator rockefeller and senator hutchison for their leadership in putting together what is such an important bill for 280,000 jobs that are saved or created as a result of this, focusing on our ability to outinnovate and outbuild in a global economy. we can't do that without a 21st century f.a.a. system, airports, air traffic control, and so on. i join with senator hutchison in hoping that -- and i'm sure it will be true that at the end of the day we will

bill after bill after bill. are we going to go back to that? i hope not. so if they're going to repeal -- that's what they're repealing. they're really repealing the way we ended the punitive practices of insurance companies. they're really repealing our attempt to make sure medicare was solvent and close the doughnut hole for prescription drugs for seniors. and also get them a better health evaluation. we also did other things. remain a so proud of this. we said to the insurance companies, 80% of what you collect has to go into health care. it can't go into administrative costs. it can't buy you another armani suit or a set of gucci shoes or aanother oregon third or fourth home or a $1,000 bottle of wine when you have those conferences where you think about price-fixing. you have to put it back into health care. i don't want to repeal that. i want that 80% collective to go back into health care. i think that's a good idea. you know, in our bill, one of the things i'm proud is that we stop big insurance from putting lifetime dollar caps on benefits. i hear

bill. "roll call" votes on those are expected throughout the day. first up you hear the first beach from freshman senator rand aiul of kentucky, now lives, nol live senate coverage you on c-span2. will lead senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, father of us all, continue to guide our lawmakers during these challenging times. infuse them with wisdom and energy so that they will not become discouraged by what sometimes seems an impossible situation. show them the road that will lead to a desired destination as you assure them of your presence, love, and grace in their work. lord, help them to defer to each other, to respect each other. so that by attitude and action they will reflect your divine will. may they fulfill their responsibilities in ways that honor you. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it sta

bill no higher than 2% for your waste water bill, how would just our waste water bill compare under those scenarios? so what this chart does is the very bottom row, it is the orange row, that takes the 10- year cip and shows are annual bill -- our annual bill, and this is based on our median household income year in the city, but what it shows is that generally, all four of the scenarios that kerin walked us through, they are generally below or at the affordability threshold, mckechnie so it means we are not out of line for affordability, but, of course, the less expensive, the better, for consumers. >> -- commissioner: does this include the fact that deferred work was not included? >> that is correct. commissioner: it would look different than if the deferred work or included? >> that is correct. and it changes if you combine the water bill in the sewer bill. there, in the u.s. epa affordability index says those two added together, usually, you want them to be below 4% if they are added together, and you see here, once you look at what our total bill would be for water and waste wa

this bill.is brash new magazine alived with the brash young editor to cast a cold light on that presumption. the magazine stands athwart history, bill announced, yelling stop. at a time when no one is inclined to do so or have much patient with those who so urge it. now this is written nearly 60 years ago. but how relevant it seems to the realities that we face now, today, circa 2010. radical experimentation, the inroad that relativism has made on the american soul and the liberals that run the country. those are a few concerns. those yelling stop in 1955 were out of place, how much more out of place now in 2010 when what bill called the relationship of the state to the individual and the united states is posed to undergo it's most thorough going transformation in history? now that's quite a statement. the most thorough going transformation in history. is it hyperbolic? ponder these phrases. stimulus package, cap and trade, spread the wealth around, nationalized health care. just before the 2008

it is at the heart of the bill. and that is that the bill contains, at its heart, over $500 billion in medicare cuts. ye over half a trillion dollar cut to medicare. and these cuts aren't invested back in medicare. they don't help medicare stay solvent. they don't help medicare survive solvent for longer. they don't help fix the looming medicare challenge. they're stolen from medicare to pay for brand-new stuff for other people in obama care. these medare cuts directly impact seniors, and one study shows that the massive cs to medicare advantage will hit louisiana seniors particularly hard. a study by the heritage undation shows that louisiana seniors enrolled in medicare advantage plans lose more than any other state i the nation because of the obama health bill. the report says that projected enrollment in medicare advantage will drop by over 125,000 louisianans, 62%. benefits will be cut by $5,000 per beneficiary. so this bill takes away benefits and choices for seniors, not to fix medicare, not to preserve medic

bill miller of the u.s. chamber of commerce reports that the budget leads to $175 billion in new tax increases. it cripples job creations by spending too much, taxing too much and borrowing too much. excessive por roe big the government competes unfairly with small businesses. i support fundamental cuts that will promote private sector job creation. we cannot expect to boar the our way to prosperity. house republicans are committed to combining sound policy with practical solutions to create jobs. we need to cut spending resh deuce borrowing, keep taxes low and provide the necessary tools to jump start job creation. in conclusion, god bless our troops an we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> poth because ma understands times are difficult. it is close

>> well, thank you bill. so bill mentioned towards the end of his talk kepler-9. it is a system with three confirmed transiting planets. it is the only star known to have more than one transiting planet. transiting planets are very very valuable because that's the way we can get sizes of the planets, and all the other hundred transiting confirmed planets prior to today were orbiting one per star. kepler-9 had three. now, if we can have my first slide? this emphasizes the 170 candidate multiple planet systems that kepler has identified. the small dots are the stars with one candidate. the small blue circles and there are over 100 of them, are the targets with two planetary candidates. the green -- the red try angle -- triangles, 45 of them -- excuse me, the 135 red triangles represent the 45 targets with three transiting candidates. the 32 pink squares represent the candidates around the eight targets that have four candidates. we've got a lot of stars with two, three and even four candidates. if you look over towards the lower left, you'll see five pentagons. they

guest: they have been calling every bill a jobs bill.arry reid cited an estimate from an industry group that the bill would create 280,000 jobs. it is about $8.1 billion in the bill. they're going to continue to say every bill but the bring up that has even the slightest economic component as a jobs bill. host: this bill came up last year and passed, so why are they taking it up again? guest: the house and the senate passed different versions. there was a separate provision that they differed on, particularly one dealing with the organization of fedex workers. there had been a lot of pressure from ups and labor unions to change the rules under which unions work could organize. that is not in this bill. that was a push by james oberstar, former chairman of the house transportation committee. he lost control of the house, so the bill faces better prospects now than it did last year. host: what else is big about the bill? guest: there is a passenger bill of rights. it is a big deal for many of us who fly on planes. the provision talked abou

senators with amendments to the bill should contact the bill managers. the senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. mr. president, a lot of people are talking this morning about the opinion of a judge in florida regarding his opinion on the health reform law. i want to just mention just very briefly about the law a little bit and then talk about the effort to take away the rights that are in the law that is prevalent in the land. the health reform bill has saved lives and saved lots of money. it's saving lives because children not getting their insurance taken away as happened before we passed the law. they can stay on their parents' health insurance plan until 26. younger kids can't get kicked off the plan because of preexisting condition condition like asthma or diabetes. older people are cover, they can have a wellness check for nothing. it doesn't cost anything much which means as far as the medicare doughnut hole, it means that seniors can finally afford the prescription drugs that they had to skip or split before we passed this law. it's

chairman bill young and i drafted this bill last year with bipartisan support from the entire defense subcommittee and we believe it is a cost-effective response to our national security needs. let me speak about the bill more broadly. it is clear that a debt crisis is looming. there is no denying that we need a comprehensive plan to reduce the debt over the long term. what the majority offers instead in this bill is a one-dimensional focus on the smallest segment of spending in the federal government budget. we believe that at this time we should be putting everything on the table, all spending, discretionary, entitlements, taxes, and without a more comprehensive approach to the debt crisis, we cannot effectively change the trajectory and begin to bring our public debt downward. without a more comprehensive budgetary approach, what we would be offering to the american people would be what senator allen simpson has called a sparrow's belch in the midst of a typhoon. as we address the debt crisis, it's fundamental that we should first do no harm to the fragile economic recovery. i am j

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

i cannot tell you what his bill will look like, what senator schumer's bill will look like. what i can say it is all those pieces work together to ultimately come up with something that is hopefully, at least, something that we can create a foundation from. comprehensive immigration reform has to be broad enough to make -- give us the foundation to build more, but i do not think it will be done at that point. there will be a lot of issues that will not happen in the first go round that will need to be perfected, but me to do enough to turn immigration into something that is not so politicized and is more about really getting down to the problems. i wanted to address briefly some by pointing out, you cannot always tell what will happen based on one set of votes. in the dhhs appropriations bill for 2010, in the senate, and there were a lot of horrible amendments to make e-verify mandatory, inshore every inch of the fence was real, we get ensure every inch of the fence was real, not virtual. -- ensure every inch of the fence was real, not virtual. a lot of people said, my goodn

this is a bill that cuts medicare to pay the bill. i heard it over and over again at the ballot box. they said they didn't wasn't to be part of it, i thought for three cycles -- three election opportunities -- 2004, 2006, 2008 -- that health care would become the biggest domestic issue. and just may be too complicated, too difficult to deal with, may be too difficult for people to engage. this law gives us the opportunity to go back and get it right. weengdzed to deal with health care for a long time. when i worked in this building in the -- on the other side of of the building, we sent medical liability reform to the senate seven times in ten years. we sent plans a half a dozen times where people could join together in what we were tale calling associate $health plans and get their insurance that way. and become part of however big a group they could figure out how to associate with. it wasn't like anybody was doing anything. and this bill very likely creates the pressure that we need to go back and loo look for better solutions. thi

this bill is one that should be repealed. we can, working together in a bipartisan basis, do better. this is what happens when one side or the other overreaches is they think the victory is worth it when, in fact, what we find out, there's a tremendous backlash by the american people reflected in the november 2, election. the more they learn about this bill, they don't like it more. they like it less. and now that the federal -- two federal judges have held that this bill is unconstitutional, it's time for us to take this matter up again once we repeal the bill and do a better job that we should have done in the first place. madame president, i yield the floor. >> from arizona. >> thank you. i want to comment my colleague from tech, former supreme court justice of texas in analyzing the legal issues as he has just done. yet another indication of why it is time for us to start over. and i join him in urging repeal and replacement of this health care bill. i'd like to speak just briefly about yet another reason why this needs t

to the bill. if it makes it better, fine, we'll agree to it. if it doesn't make it better, we won't agree to it. some will be subject to a point of order and we'll raise those points of order, but the member who offers the amendment will be allowed to discuss it before we raise the point of order as a courtesy to them. anyway, again, i want to congratulate mr. dicks for the work that he did during the time he was chairman and as he said in the general debate, he and i have worked together for over 30 years on the national security and intelligence affairs of our nation. he is a very honorable, very hard working, very much determined to do a good job for our nation and he shares the same feelings that i have here that while we may have to make reductions and have to come up with savings, we will not approve anything that has an adverse effect on the war fighters. we will not do anything that has an adverse effect on readiness of our nation and our national security effort. it is a commitment i've m

speaker, the last congress and this administration passed bill after bill after bill that either tacked or regulated businesses and small firms right out of business. it's going to take time to unravel that mess. with this bill, again, we're going to identify a lot of irrational rules that represent those barriers. with that, i would strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i greel back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. >> yes, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: i rise to support the continuing resolution. my colleagues on the other side will oppose the effort, claim werg seeking to strip basic public health and safety protections. no one is in favor of hurting those in those areas, but that's not the purpose of us being here today. we've had hearings on rules and regulation

bill. a few minutes later the house passed an amendment by mr. king prohibiting the use of funds by any federal agency for this purpose. and a few minutes after that vote, the house passed another amendment by mr. king prohibiting funds to pay the salary of any federal employee to implement or administer the affordable care act. the majority party does not like the affordable care act. and would like to cut off all funding for the act's implementation. now, that much is clear. but how many times do we need to pass the same prohibition yesterday and today? we're three -- will three times be enough? or will the house bring more and more amendments doing essentially the same thing until everyone on the majority side has satisfied their urge to make clear just how opposed they are to expanding the availability of health care in this country, which is what the affordable care act is all about. instead of this pointless debate, we should be working on what the american public wants. they want us

th if you think there are things bill, come that shouldn't be in the bill come talk to us. effort. 1099 days bipartisan effort. l as senator stabenow, i know last week senator klobuchar, kendal and nelson sent a letter tor s speaker they ever saying pleaseaker get us in 1099 build. senator joe bonds has done a good job, bipartisan.aying e we are not saying everything is we'r perfect in this bill we are not saying it can't be improved. saying we are saying let's work together in a bipartisan manner to make it better. with the other side is saying is r just repealed. thing repeal the good things, the things they don't like, create aur huge hole in our deficit and aith sleeveless with nothing. the slogan was going to be we've repealed and replaced. we have only heard the first part of the slogan. i will tell you why there is no replace.d t o it's hard. it's hard to take this huge and wielding an efficient healthpe it care system and shape it up.t tk that's why it took us so long and it created a great deal of. i' controversy. i will speak first to admit it. but i will see a su

>> it's a very complicated bill, sir. >> is there anything about the bill you don't like? >> you know, right now i'm complemtteding. >> no. yes or no i guess because i'm not going to get a straight answer. is there anything about the bill that you would change? yes? no? >> over time, we're going to learn about this bill, sir. and -- >> from what you know today. from what you know today, sir, is there anything that you would change? >> there's in the whole -- >> sir. can you tell me when the $206 billion cuts to medicare advantage begin? >> well, right now the payments are stabilizing. >> when do the $206 billion cuts begin? what's the target date, the set date? what year? >> the cuts are phased in over time. >> when do they begin? >> it depends on the plan. >> what year do the cuts begin? can you give me a year? >> it's variable depending on the plan and the area. >> 2017, $206 billion in cuts will begin to take place. your actuaries say, as mr. davis has asked you, that there would be 7.4 million seniors losing their health care. so the statement that you agreed with earl

authorization bill. as a result of cloture being filed yesterday, any germane first-degree amendments must be filed at the desk prior to 1:00 p.m. thaod in order -- today in order for the amendments to be in order postcloture. we have the opportunity to complete this legislation opportunity. there will be two cloture votes in the morning. we hope to be able to have some votes today, and senators will be notified when roll call votes are scheduled. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we are not. mr. mcconnell: as the debate over government spending comes into focus this week, i think it's worth noting once again how this debate has shifted in recent weeks. after two years of bailouts and stimulus bills, we're finally talking about how much government should cut instead of how much it should spend. obviously the details matter, and we'll be working those out in the weeks ahead. but the fact that this de

i saw the senate's working on a two-year bill. i want a four-year bill. i had no idea my bill would turn into, what, seven- or eight-year bill, jerry? the one we crafted 2003. but we need it longer. not shorter. our challenge will be to do more with less. i want a robust -- and i'm still soliciting right up until we get the final ink dry on whatever we do, next gen suggestions. next gen is our vision for the future. so, i invite and welcome anyone's recommendation, particularly want to hear from the administrator on that. so this, again, does set forth our policy, our projects, our funding and our safety program for one of the most important activities in our economy. again, be a full, open process, but it's also going to move forward with lightning speed. and with that, i thank you for yielding to me, and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. and i would recognize at this time for an opening statement our colleague from texas, mrs. johnson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me thank the two leaders on this committee for the kind of

this bill is one step forward and it is this. we are putting the federal credit card up for one day every month, that is all. one day. one day we won't borrow $5 billion out of the whole month, but other days we will borrow $4 to $5 billion every single day to keep going. just as mr. mcgovern said, this is borrowed money. that is an important note and important thing to talk about, but it is only one day. it is a right step, but it is not a slamming on the brakes. it is a small step forward in the right direction and that's all. it is hard to turn the rudder of government one degree. this may turn it a degree and that is about it, but it is at least a step in the right direction. >> thank you very much for being here, mr. dixon. and again, let me just express appreciation to you for your willingness to as we proceed with what is nearly unprecedented. you have never seen a continuing resolution come to the house floor under a structure that we are considering, that this committee is reporting out right now. i remember them all bei

cramming is when a third party company adds a charge to your bill that you didn't order. at&t simply collects the money for them. well, now after years of complaints, at&t tells us they finally instituted a new policy that could put an end to cramming charges like dan's once and for all. >> so if a customer calls us now, we can put a third party block on that account and that no third party charges will go into effect. >> reporter: john briton with at&t says in the past, if customers complained, their charges were dropped. but in many cases like dan's they would reappear month after month. now with the new policy, all dan has to do is ask for a third party block which will permanently prevent other companies from cramming his at&t bill with rogue charges. >> i'm just looking to the day that i can get my at&t bill without being slammed by usbi. >> reporter: at&t is reimbursing dan for all the charges but when we contacted usb i they told us they stopped billing dan back in january of 2008. usbi blamed at&t, at&t of course blames usbi but either way dan is now getting his m

pass the civil rights bill.os who are aware of what went around have an awareness of what's going on prettyically in the country. they take the civil rights bill as a new method of placating the negro. >> as the filibuster began, the battle lines in the senate were clearly drawn. >> negros have many rights in this country as other people. they're better housed and enjoy as many benefits as other people and have every opportunity in the world here. they have more opportunity here than in any nation in the world. i don't know of any place where they have as good housing, as many refrigerators, as many automobiles and dishwashers and washing machines as here in the united states. >> at last a congress must act because the congress represents the people and this means a civil rights program before congress and it will be here and i want to tell you now that we're going to carry through on this program if we have to stay here all year. >> how long will you debate this bill? >> until it's defeated. >> president johnso

most of the authors of the bill are praying he vetoes this bill. but the fact is we are in here playing this game. we are trying to take from one slashed account and move funds to another slashed account. but in the clear case of how the republicans are swinging a meat axe, cops programs, cops on the beat. the cops program has been a success not because it has been a big city program. look at this. you have cops over the first 10 years of the program in every single state, every single community has increased because of police officers. and i thought being tough on crime was a republican ideal. you slash this funding and what's going to wind up happening is your localities is going to have one of two choices, lay off police officers or raise taxes some other way. it's going to be a net zero effect because they want to keep the cops on the beat. where do we keep the money from? we aren't going to replace it but take it out of space exploration. i want to see mars but i want cops in brooklyn and queens. but let's face something about this budget. it

bill. thereforeit is a violation. the chair: anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i respect the chairman and i know that he has as mr. serrano says, his own commitment. i consider this an emergency and whether or not a point of order could be waived in light of the fact that cases that are now in litigation would be in, essence, left without representation either for the client or the case. i consider it a legal emergency, emergency dealing with justice questions and i would ask that the point of order be waived. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard? seeing none the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from virginia makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. it establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the charetr chair has been gaded by an estimate from the chair of the committee on budget that the a

because it wasn't a health care bill. it was a tax bill. it was a tax bill that had by constitutional authority had to originate in the house of representatives. so then the other body had the perfect vehicle. take the housing bill, strip out the housing language, put in the health care language, pass it on christmas eve and we'll gather back after the new year's eve festivities and create a conference committee and pass the president's signature health care legislation. but it didn't happen that way. and then the elimination opponent on the democratic side began in sequential form such that by march 23 of last year, enough democrats had changed their votes and would support the senate-passed house bill and the question, will the house now agree to the senate amendment on 3590, the answer affirmatively. was that the end of the story? no. this was ostensibly litigated in the political arena last fall. what was the judgment of the american people after the litigation in the political arena? the answer was, we don't want it. we don't want any

this bill, amazingly enough, the republicans have passed a provision or want to in this bill that would make it illegal for the environmental protection agency to protect the environment. now why would you want to make it illegal for the environmental protection agency to protect the environment? i want to make clear how radical this action is. there's no fiscal reason for this this is just an assault on clean air. the dirty air act is not going to revise any proposed rules of the environmental protection agency. it isn't going to modify any clean air laws. it's going to eliminate them. by saying that it's illegal for the e.p.a. to enforce these clean air laws. the sad thing about this, mr. chairman, mr. chairman, this is an assault on science. you read the specific scientific conclusions of the thousands of scientists who have reviewed this and here's what the scientists and the fi cigs say. not the politician the physicians. here's what they say. greenhouse gases are the primary drive of climate change which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, p

bill. i hope that our senate leaders heard you loud and clear tonight and that we will return next week to make that our first order of business. certainly the impact you have outlined is a disaster. there is no need for us to debate a bill like this when we should do a higher priority bill. one of your greatest success stories has been growth and development of afghan national security forces. i understand that that is going well generally. i understand how imperative it is that we build up those forces so that we can eventually leave afghanistan, shortchanging the vetting of recruits. killed by afghan border police officers, a private military officers. afghan personnel having attacked our military personnel or coalition partners six times. what are we doing to be sure the tragic incidents like this cannot occur. >> certainly each one is a tragedy. when i go back to the overall strategy and have focused on the quality of the move. the quality of the infrastructure and substantial training

this is an proceedings bill. according to my colleagues across the aisle, it is a bill with the sole purpose of reducing the deficit. a noble goal. however, the clean water rider in section 1747 of this bill does not save one dime of taxpayer money. it is not about funding, it is about restricting the legal authority of the e.p.a. and the work of the army corps of engineers in an underhanded, politics-as-usual attack on our drinking water, our environment, and the thousands of recreational fishing, hunting, and boating jobs these water resources support. we may have banned formal earmarks this year, but this rider amounts to a handout to big polluters at the expense of basic public health protection. mr. chair, i again thank you and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona -- the gentlelady from -- who actually wishes to claim time? the gentleman from arizona, for what purpose do you rise? mr. grijalva: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for

when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, during consideration of h reform 1, clause 2-f of rule 1 shall not apply to amendments adressing objects within more one suballocations made by the committee on appropriations under section 302-b of the congressional budget act of 1974. section 3. 24e requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 oh vote to consider it on the same day it's presented in the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of february 17, 2011, providing for disposition of h.r. 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my new friend, the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which time i yield myself such time as i ma

because it wasn't a health care bill. it was a tax bill. it was a tax bill that had by constitutional authority had to originate in the house of representatives. so then the other body had the perfect vehicle. take the housing bill, strip out the housing language, put in the health care language, pass it on christmas eve and we'll gather back after the new year's eve festivities and create a conference committee and pass the president's signature health care legislation. but it didn't happen that way. and then the elimination opponent on the democratic side began in sequential form such that by march 23 of last year, enough democrats had changed their votes and would support the senate-passed house bill and the question, will the house now agree to the senate amendment on 3590, the answer affirmatively. was that the end of the story? no. this was ostensibly litigated in the political arena last fall. what was the judgment of the american people after the litigation in the political arena? the answer was, we don't want it. we don't want any

. >> the bill is $1,847. and that's just for the ambulance ride. and the ambulance driver said there's nothing i can do. i guess that's the price you pay for trying to save somebody's life. >> we're trying to work with this family in order to eliminate this bill. >> reporter: today minutes before we talked to the fishers they got this. >> we wanted to take care of that bill that you had received. >> we live paycheck to paycheck, it would have been really hard to have done that. so that's why i'm so thankful. >> reporter: ambulance services is a private business not subsidized by taxpayer money and covered by most insurance companies, the fishers are uninsured. maureen naylor, ktvu news. >>> a new poll suggests that californians aren't sure how they feel about governor brown. less than half of californians were undecided about brown's performance since he took office and deals with the $25 billion budget deficit. almost 34% approved of the job he was doing. similar poll last month, brown had more support with

we should be doing a jobs bill, not putting our imprimatur today on a bill that's another exercise in politics. the right vote for the country is no. i yield pack the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 519. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: with that, i yield two minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes and 15 seconds. mr. royce: we do get $179 million back into the treasury, which the c.b.o. doesn't count as savings. it's obvious that these curt upgrades should be funded through the u.n. capital master plan, that's the $2 billion, five-year effort to renovate up headquarters in new york. we do know by raiding the t.e.f. over payments owed to american

or by cutting a war funding because it's not in the same bill, it's not in the same section of the bill. so the american people's representatives have our hands tied because we are prisoners of the construct constructed by the republican party that says let the rich have their tax cuts and the oil companies have their tax breaks and let the multinational companies exploit the jobs overseas and pay no taxes. we'll pay for it by robbing the american people of transportation, of highways, of bridges, of unemployment insurance, of job creation, of education. that's what we're dealing with here and the debate should be looked on in the context of that, of the culmination of that 30-year plot by the republicans which we're seeing and which it was freely admitted by a lot of people, including -- starting with ronald reagan's budget director who started it. i yield back. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 306, title , legislative branch, section 1901, the level for house of representatives salaries and expenses, $1,288,299,072. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ke

the health care bill he signed into law last spring. and it would zero out support for planned paers ened parentho. on the house floor, chris smith read a graphic account of the procedure. >> the doctor goes in with foreaccepts. >> leading jackie speer to throw out the speech she planned to give. >> i had a procedure at 17 weeks. >> and tell her own story. >> i lost a baby. but for you to stand on this floor and to suggest as you have, that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought is preposterous. >> the president has threatened to veto the entire bill. but the government runs out of money on march fourth, and many believe that neither side will blink before then. >> a couple weeks ago, i would have said, we're not going to go through that again, we're not going to have a government shutdown. it seepz we may well be headed in that direction. >> by the time the gavel came down early this morning, many members were wheels up on anywhere way home for a week-long president's day rece

and let's see if we can do a bipartisan bill instead of this totally partisan bill that will work in this country. and you know that's what was going to happen when they refused to work with republicans. all 60 democrats in the senate had to pass it. not one republican. all of the democrats in the house had to pass it. not one republican. there's good reasons why the republicans didn't support this bill. now they find themselves in trouble so what do they try and do? phony it up by saying we're going to move this waiver situation from 2017 to 2014. but you have to meet all the requirements anyway in the bill. i mean, my gosh, anybody with brains will know that ain't going to work. >> woodruff: i did see, senator, there was... there have been comments from administration officials who were briefing reporters after the president spoke who said, you know, that this allows states the flexibility to move in a different direction. for example, if it's a state that wants to move more toward a single-payor system that's one thing. or if it wants to move... they even used the example of your

wow, bill. is that an offer? you going to make it for the whole staff and bring it in?ttle 4:00 a.m. taco. >> no candle light. >> i wouldn't expect it. >> i'm lynn berry. this is early today, your first stop of the day your nbc station. >>> one gallery in washington, d.c. has found the ultimate example of bipartisanship by bringing together all 44 presidents, with at least the wax version of them are on display. the $2 million exhibit top ofs bring together 29 commanders in chief. curators hope the president over pop stars display will attract schools now. >>> new year's celebrations in china are coming to the close with a bang, literally. a festival includes splashing molten iron fireworks. while the 300-year-old tradition might look dangerous, the performers take safety precautions. they're covered head to toe in fireproof gear, which also insures that they can with stand the heat. they are admired for their strength and bravery. that is, for sure. >>> well, a computer just won at jeopardy, and now robots are running marathons. seriously, what's next? a training sessi