mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass house concurrent resolution 27. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 27, concurrent resolution providing for the acceptance of a statue of gerald r. ford from the people of michigan for placement in the united states capitol. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, and the lady from california, ms. woolsey, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i ask that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house concurrent resolution 27, providing for the acceptance of a statue of gerald r. ford from the

mr. lungren: point of order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: state your point. mr. lungren: the gentleman made a personal reference to me stating that i made a statement on the floor and then called that the biggest lie of the year. is that in fact an appropriate comment to be made on the floor during debate? mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, it's not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california has not stated a point of order. would you proceed to state the point. mr. lungren: i would make a point of order that the gentleman has made a personal reference to me and followed that up by saying that what i said was a lie. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman demanding the words be taken down? mr. lungren: not at this time, mr. speaker. but i would ask that the speaker would admonish members not to question the motivation of other members in reference to any debate that's taken place. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, i would suggest that the people listen to what i said. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon will proceed.

mr. lungren: point of order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: state your point. mr. lungren: the gentleman made a personal reference to me stating that i made a statement on the floor and then called that the biggest lie of the year. is that in fact an appropriate comment to be made on the floor during debate? mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, it's not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california has not stated a point of order. would you proceed to state the point. mr. lungren: i would make a point of order that the gentleman has made a personal reference to me and followed that up by saying that what i said was a lie. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman demanding the words be taken down? mr. lungren: not at this time, mr. speaker. but i would ask that the speaker would admonish members not to question the motivation of other members in reference to any debate that's taken place. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, i would suggest that the people listen to what i said. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon will proceed.

mr. lungren: mr. speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to refer to the so-called health care reform bill as the affordable health care act. there are a lot of questions after one year after passage, but one question has been answered. it is not the affordable medical care act. it is the unaffordable medical care act. why do i say that? well, h.h.s. has decided to give over 1,000 waivers to businesses, to unions and now even to state because they find they can't afford what's required in the bill. secondly, i haven't met a single constituent whose health care costs by way of their insurance policies or programs has gone down. they've all gone up as a direct result of the bill passed on this floor and signed by the president. so at least have some truth in labeling. it's not the affordable health care act. it's increasingly becoming the unaffordable health care act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois ris

mr. lungren's bill and as mr. lungren said at the jut set, democrats were discouraged from co-sponsoring it because by co-sponsoring the measure they admitted this outrageous health care bill was flawed. well it got to the point where the pd of the united states in his news conference right after the election said, the bill needs to be fixed, the 1099 provision needs to be fixed. he was acknowledging it was fixed. we have a big debate on cut-go, and i would be happy to yield to my friend to ask the question i know he's going to ask me because i've heard it a million times. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, for the purposes of a parliamentary inquiry. mr. dreier: i'm yielding to my friend. mr. crowley: the reason i'm asking for my colleagues to yield was to inquire as to the procedures of the house that when i ask the speaker for a -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time, i asked him to ask me the question he was asking. mr. crowley: what of the example i gave you of a family of four earning $88,000 a year who gets a bonus, how m

mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time. mr. speaker, i'm pleased that we are bringing h.r. 4 to the floor. this is a bill that i introduced in its original form last april 26, when we looked at the health care bill that had passed and saw that this, which has absolutely nothing to do with health care, this new burden on businesses, this double-edged sword against small business, was put in that bill supposedly to pay for part of the health care bill. now, we have our democratic friends talking about the pay-for here. i happen to think that we don't even need a pay-for because i think there is a game that is played in this place which is, we will put something in the health care bill that virtually nobody knows is in there, i'll bet you 99% of the members of the house and the senate who voted on that bill didn't even know this provision was in there, we then have it scored as somehow gaining $19 billion for the federal government over the next 10 years, which i happen to think is made out of whole cloth because you have to assum

mr. lungren. >> i don't recognize those schools of thought. i want to we can sheriff baca here. he's an old friend. we worked in law enforcement together and we worked with your department in creating the community oriented policing and problem solving program that you've carried through of which i would say this is an extension. that is what you referred to here today. at the same time, i would say to those who criticize us for a singular focus here that i have been on panels that have investigated the continuing presence of nazi war criminals in the united states, and whether or not we should continue to investigate and prosecute them. i have served on panels that dealt with the war time relocation of japanese americans and japanese nationals that was limited to that. i have been in hearings in which we have looked at the problem of youth gang violence and we didn't talk about nonyouth gang violence. i've been on the judiciary committee when we held hearings about the unsolved murders of african-americans in the south, four decades after that, and where we made sure that there

mr. lungren. >> i don't recognize those schools of thought. i want to we can sheriff baca here. he's old friend. we worked in law enforcement together and we worked with your department in creating the community orited policing and problem solving program that you've carried through of which i would say this is an extension. that is what you referred to here today. at the same time, i would say to those who criticize us for a singular focus here that i have been on panels that have investigated the continuing presence of naziar criminals in the united states, and whether or not we should continue to investigate and prosecute them. i have served on panels that dealt with the war time relocation of japanese americans and japanese nationals that was limited to that. i haveeen in hearings in which we have looked at the problem of youth gang violence and we didn't talk about nonyouth gang violence. i've been on the judiciary committee when we held hearings about the unsolved murders of african-americans in the south, four decades after that, and where we made sure that there was fina

mr. lungren. >> i don't recognize those schools of thought. i want to we can sheriff baca here. he's an old friend. we worked in law enforcement together and we worked wi your department in creating the community oriented policing and problem solving progra that you've carried through of which i would say this is an extension. that is what you referred to here today. at the same time, i would say to those who criticize us for a singular focus here that i have been on panels that have investigated the continuing presence of nazi war criminals in the united states, and whether or not we should continue to investigate and prosecute them. i haveerved on panels that dealt with the war time relocation of japanese americans and japanese nationals that was limited to that. i have been in hearings in whh we have looked at theroblem of youth gang violence and we didn't talk about nonyouth gang violence. i've been on the judiciary committee when we held hearings about the unsolved murders of african-americans in the south, four decades after that, and where we made sure that there was fina