mr. garamendi: h garamendi: thank you, mr. defazio. the republicans seem to be just dismantling time after time. i'd like to turn to congresswoman betty sutton, our colleague from the state of ohio, who has seen the effect of the cuts and what they mean in her district. so ms. sutton if you care to share with us your thoughts. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman for his leadership. he's been a stalwart. boy, do we need leadership at this point. here we are, it's been 29 weeks, more than 200 days since the republicans took over the majority of the house and not only have they not done anything to create jobs or help working families, here we are today, looking at what they have done. what have they done? after walking away from the table five times in negotiations to restore our neigh's fiscal house, the house republicans have passed a bill today to kick the can down the road so we can continue to have this debate over again in a matter of months. but make no mistake, this is a political dodge. republicans could not agree on a long-term s

mr. garamendi: could you yield for just a moment? mr. tonko: certainly. mr. garamendi: you have moved to a subject that we want to get to which is jobs. mr. tonko: if i could say one thing. when we fall short on the medicaid side, it falls upon a property taxpayer and if you are on a fixed income and many seniors are and disproportionate number of women in households in the senior years are going to be impacted by a property tax that when levied on that home doesn't know if you are unemployed, on fixed income or underemployed, so it will be hitting a retirey on fixed income very, very hard. we are transferring from a progressive income taxes and taxes on the federal level on over to a state situation where it will trickle down to the property tax. mr. garamendi: and on the individuals. this is something that i always put up when we talk about medicare, it was 1965. this is a tombstone and it says medicare, 1965 to 2007, created by l.b.j., destroyed by the g.o.p. mr. tonko: we had three votes to end medicare. mr. garamendi: three votes to end medicare in the ne

mr. garamendi: mr. fonko, one example i can share with you, we had a town hall meeting in my district talking about the medicare program. mr. courtney: we had dr. rebecca andrews. she's a primary care doc at the university of connecticut health center and she was talking about the new annual screening coverage where she had a -- one of her patients which is a big, huskey guy. they used to kind of razz each other. she did the soup de nuts checkup. she did a urine test. she found a tiny speck of blood at the lab which they were concerned about. turned out he had bladder cancer. because they were able to detect it so quickly, because of that annual checkup and the cancer screening tests that are now covered under medicare, it was a day surgery, in and out and really very nonintrusive event that cost a fraction of what it would have been if he had not that checkup to detect that cancer early. she had at least two other patients because of the new affordable care act annual checkup where they detected cancer

mr. garamendi: they are saying not to follow the law. mr. simpson: it is absurd to think repealing a secretarial order that does not supersede federal law changes the underlying law. mr. garamendi: reclaiming my time. in fact, the secretarial order does follow the law. it precisely follows the law. tchoip the -- the chair: the committee will come to order. the gentleman from washington's time has expired who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: i would yield a moment of my time to the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i didn't want it but thank you. let me just simply try and come up with this one last time. the idea of inventory is covered in flitma. that doesn't change. the secretarial order is a new policy, that has been superseded by another secretarial order. it doesn't have an impact on the -- on think this which is one of the reasons why the admin

mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california, page 125, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $2,695,031,000. page 125, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $348,845,000. page 125, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $264,718,000. page 125, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $521,937,000. page 126, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $81,201,000. page 126, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $16,362,000. page 126, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $9,964,000. page 126, line 23, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $10,511,000. page 127, line 5, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $247,421,000. page 127, line 11, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $3,698,000. page 127, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $8,662,596,000. page 127, line 24, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $1,58

mr. garamendi: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: i think the point of order is out of worder. the issue before us is of utmost importance to the nation and the world as more and more light water reactors are built, the problem of spent fuel continues to mount and creates hazards. the united states did in fact figure out how to close the nuclear fuel cycle. getting to that point -- the chair: the gentleman needs to speak to the point of order. mr. garamendi: i am working towards that. the chair: the gentleman needs to speak to the point of order. mr. garamendi: i will yield back my time and take up the judget later. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. to be considered en bloc, an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. because the amendment by the gentleman from california proposes a net increase of the levels of outlay in the bill it may not avail itself of clause 2f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 24, line 7, fos

mr. garamendi, myself and mr. jones and others, all in various ways seeking to speed our exit from afghanistan. i support them all. two weeks ago, the president proposed that we continue fighting in afghanistan for at least 3 1/2 more years. in those 3 1/2 years, more of our soldiers will die, more of our treasure will be spent and in the end, we will not be any closer to creating a stable afghanistan or to enhancing our safety. the whole premise of this war is wrong. fighting in afghanistan does not enhance the security of the united states. 10 years ago, we were attacked on 9/11 by al qaeda. al qaeda had bases in afghanistan and at that time, it made sense to go in and destroy those bases, a and we did. but the c.i.a. tell us there are fewer than 100 personnel in afghanistan. so why are we still fighting there. why do we have troops in afghanistan at the end of 2012, troops who will continue to risk their lives every day in a war that has already claimed too many american lives? and we will continue deploying bi

mr. garamendi of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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 ar

mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. speaker. americans want jobs. 200 days by the republican power in this house and not one jobs bill. this cut, slash, and burn legislation will not work. we need to invest, grow, and build strategy. . that's what americans want from congress. they want us to invest in education, invest in research and innovation, so america can remain a leader. they want us to invest in infrastructure, highways, clean energy, cut our dependence on foreign oil, because when we make it in america, that's when america will make it. americans can make it. cut, yes. but what we ought to cut are the republican giveaways to the oil companies, wall street barons, hedge fund managers who enjoy massive tax breaks. that's where the tax breaks ought to be. they ought to be cut out. what of this legislation that's before us? we ought to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i hope the gentleman joins us in supporting our plan then because ou

mr. garamendi: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: i agree with the two previous speakers, my colleagues from california. here we are dealing with a flawed bill that would deny our stewardship of our environment, all while we're faced with an economic consequence, with a default that stares us in the face. for the past 200 days, the republican leadership of this body has set aside america's priority of job creation in order to talk about the debt and to talk about the deficit. my concern is that as we face that looming threat of default, my republican colleagues aren't doing much but talk. after 200 days with no jobs agenda, after 200 days of voting to destroy millions of jobs, after 200 days of saying those hardest hit by the recession should bear the burden of unbalanced cuts, after 00 days of rhetoric and walking away, my republicans colleagues have forced this congress and the american people to wait yet more hours to see and vot

mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you very much. very interesting progress here in america. there is a differencing view and right now we're trying to choose which path our nation will go. this is not about a deficit. this is about the very nature of america. it's about our heart and soul. are we going to be a country that uses all of our resources whether they are the public resources or the private resources to fill the needs of our people, their education, their health care, their well-being after they retire or are we going to go a different path and not use all of our potential? the republican proposal that's before us -- this is not the first -- but it would change america and really drive us back to the 19th century, a time in which the government did not have a social welfare program such as social security and medicare. make no doubt about this and have no doubts that the proposal before us is a step, a very significant step towards ending social security and medicare. if that's what the ameri

mr. garamendi of california. amendment by mr. nadler of new york. amendment number 1 by mr. poe of texas. amendment number 2 by ms. lee of california. amendment number 41 by ms. -- mr. cohen of tennessee. amendment by mr. cicilline of rhode island. amendment by mr. cohen of tennessee. amendment number 2 by mr. poe of texas. amendment number 1 by ms. mccollum from minnesota. amendment number 2 by ms. mccollum of minnesota. amendment number 13 by mr. cole of oklahoma. amendment by mr. amash of michigan. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for the second through 11th vote. the final two votes will be five minute votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 1, offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a suffi

mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to be joined by my colleagues today and we were going to talk about the financial situation here in the united states and the meaning of the various ideas and proposals that have been put forward. i want to compliment my colleagues on the republican side for their tenacity in putting out their sound bites but i think it's very, very important for the american people to understand in detail exactly what is being proposed here. yesterday we did have what was called the cut, cap and balance proposal. you might also call it the cut, slash and burn proposal because once you get past the sound bites and get into the details of what is actually -- what has actually been proposed, you got to stand back and go, whoa, wait a minute, is that really what a balanced budget amendment is all about? we're going to go into that in a few moments to really understand exactly what this balanced budget amendment is and the effect that it will have on americans,

mr. garamendi, for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank you, madam speaker. i was just kind of curious about which one of those e.p.a. regulations that my colleague was talking about. perhaps it's the one that would prevent the emission of mercury into the air or arsenic into the water. maybe they want to poison the air and the water. maybe that's what they're looking at. or the f.c.c. regulation that would bring to heel wall street and all of its excesses -- or the s.e.c. regulation that would bring to heel wall street and all of its excesses. in any case, what i'd like to talk about here is the negotiations that are under way to deal with the looming crisis of the debt. the president of the united states has said, ok, let's not kick the can down the road any further. let's deal with this issue and has proposed a $4 trillion solution. no sooner did he make that proposal than our republican colleagues said, oh, no, we can't do that because that will include finally creating an america a fair tax code. one in which the superwealthy are actually going to get to

mr. garamendi: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are advised to address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've heard many of my republican friends claim that providing the private sector with certainty and then getting out of its way is one of the ways congress spurs economic recovery. mr. connolly: unfortunately speaker boehner's plan does neither of those two things. it's -- it delays a catastrophic default only for a short time, keeping this crisis going before requiring the same charade in six months' time. if house republicans are so unwilling to consider compromise today, if they are sure that bipartisan compromise is proposed, why should the american people have any faith that when they come back in six months there will be more -- they will be more willing to compro

mr. garamendi: madam speaker, later this week this house will take up the second coming, if you will, of the house republican budget, a budget designed to destroy medicare, basically to terminate it, for anyone that's 55 years or younger. a plan designed to put social security on a track to privatization, a plan designed to take nearly $700 billion out of the medicaid program, basically to destroy those things that have held the fabric of america together. have no illusions about what this is all about. it's not just a constutional amendment, it's not just cut and cap. it is really about destroying medicare, medicaid, proams that are essential for seniors. if you want to make a cut in something, why don't you take 1/3 of $1 trillion out of the war in afghanistan, which is what we're going to spend over the next four years? now there is a good cut that we ought to make. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: thank you, madam

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i was listening to the debate here and i'm going, what are they thinking? what is the rationale, what is the purpose for the legislation that we have before us and more point he hadly, the amendment that was just offered. this is an incredible country. this is a country that very recently took great provided in cleaning its rivers -- pride in cleaning its rivers in protecting it from chemicals, toxins and poisons. this is a country that took pride in creating the first national park and expanding it over time to create the most awesome national park system in the entire world. this is a country that took great pride in the snake river and the use of the land and water conservation funds. an argument was made a moment ago that there isn't enough money, but a month ago, an effort to increase the royalties from our oil, that is pumped from our land, the land of the people of the united states to increase those royalties and in fact to get a royalty was rejected from our republican collea

mr. garamendi: madam speaker, later this week this house will take up the second coming, if you will, of the house republican budget, a budget designed to destroy medicare, basically to terminate it, for anyone that's 55 years or younger. a plan designed to put social security on a track to privatization, a plan designed to take nearly $700 billion out of the medicaid program, basically to destroy those things that have held the fabric of america together. have no illusions about what this is all about. it's not just a constitutional amendment, it's not just cut and cap. it is really about destroying medicare, medicaid, programs that are essential for seniors. if you want to make a cut in something, why don't you take 1/3 of $1 trillion out of the war in afghanistan, which is what we're going to spend over the next four years? now there is a good cut that we ought to make. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: thank you, m

mr. garamendi: what a fortuitous moment to flole my colleague from california. i do know something about the interior budget. i know what the department of interior means to america. early this morning, i left sacramento. my mind was very much on the debate you just suggested, what are we going to do about the deficit. it didn't take long as i sat by the window, as i moved over the sierra nevada mountains, to nevada and across the rockies and across the entire nation. for most of the way it was rather clear. we have an awesome, unbelievably beautiful country and we're the strongest nation in the world and we have great economic strength. this bill, however, would take this great nation, the great beauty, the incredible people of america and put them at risk. and put this nation's ex-trordnary beauty and resources at risk. that's what this is about. this isn't going to solve the budget deficit one way or the other. this is a min us kuhl part of the overall federal budget. important, important because it is about this nation's physical and human health. we're talk

garamendi from california joins us tonight. john, great to have you with us. at this hour, mr. boehner is crafting yet another bill with deeper cuts. where does this stand for the republicans? and one other point that i find very interesting is that they are making the rounds to conservative media, trying to gin up support to get enough of these tea partyers on board. they're going to hannity, they're going to limbaugh, they're going to some conservative magazines and wh whatnot. what does this say about where they are right now? >> i think they're in tremendous disarray. you just saw michele bachmann saying no way would she ever vote for a change in the debt limit. and i think that's where most of the tea party, the newew republicans stand. in which case boehner will not be able to get this doing pen and that brings us to, well, what do we do now? if we can't get a bill throughout house that has any chance of actually solving this problem. and i must say the president has put forth a very balanced plan. some of that four point trillion is actually what we've been demanding, wh