mr. stupak? >> mr. chairman i have the amendment at the desk, 005. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> mr. stupak, could you repeat the number? >> 005. >> five? >> top right-hand corner, 005. >> could you say what the vision? is it a or b? >> a. >> it is a. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment offered by mr. stupak of michigan, mr. pitts of pennsylvania and mr. terrie of nebraska. at the poor pcie please insert the following. >> i would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. can i ask again that this is within the division and has been provided within the time, the two hours? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. stupak is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. over the past 35 years congress has passed three laws, the church amendment, and the hyde amendment protecting the conscious writes for health workers is this the with regard to abortion. however the lenhardt feazel legislation we are considering here today does not contain conscious protections f

mr. stupak and mrs. baldwin agreed with appear to be pro-life language in other words, if you are a pro-life member the unanimous consent request improves the bill in that respect; is that not a true statement? >> of course i am pro-life member and the statement is correct. >> i would ask my friend from oregon to not object to this. this actually improves the bill -- >> if you will allow -- if you have the time, doesn't this promote with the people of oregon voted for? to provide information about in of life alternatives? it doesn't conflict, as i understand it -- with your policy. >> it is just to find out what in the devil it does or doesn't do. and what i'm told is basically the quiet, don't ask questions, we've got to go. it's been agreed by others who've negotiated. that's great. i would just like to know from my state's perspective who wins and who loses and then i can make an informed decision. >> as the gentlelady offering the amendment have an answer? >> i take you all that your wertheim just tr

mr. stupak was saying.that putting caps on noneconomic damages does not reduce the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and it does not solve the problem. there are a lot of creative thing that states have done to try to use dispute resolution with doctors and patients. but using a blunt instrument like this just is simply not going to solve a problem and what it will do is take away legit empty lawsuits that legitimate patients might have. so this is not a solution. i support finding ways of reducing medical cost. i support finding ways to reduce medical practice frankly but study after study has shown this system doesn't work, even in states like bart's or mine other states that have passed caps on noneconomic damages. i will yield back. >> my time is up, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> all time has expired. the vote now owe on the burgess amendment. all those in favor say eight. opposed, no. the nos have it. >> request the roll on this. >> let's go to roll call vote. [ roll called ] >> mr. waxman? >>

mr. stupak, brought to this floor, that the gentleman, mr. smith, brought to this floor. so i'll be asking for a no vote on the previous question so we can amend the rule tdo it right, to go back to what's been essentially 200 years of rules on appropriations. there's no question that this rule the majority brings forward today will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority is setting every single day. madam speaker, it's so sad because no new member of this body in the last session or this session has ever seen an open rule. they're damaging bipartisanship in this body. it's sad. i'll urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so we can allow a free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the right of millions of americans who've been gagged, not only by speaker pelosi, but the rules committee. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. i urge a no vote on the previous question, no vote on the rule, and once again, a demand fr

mr. stupak. mr. stupak no. mr. engel? mr. engel no. mr. green? ms. degette? no. mrs. capps? mrs. capps no. mr. doyle? mr. doyle, no. ms. harman? ms. harman no. ms. schakowsky no. mr. gonzalez? mr. gonzalez no. mr. inslee. mr. inslee no. ms. baldwin? ms. baldwin no. mr. ross? mr. weiner? no. mr. weiner, no. mr. butterfield? mr. butterfield, no. mr. melancon? mr. melancon, no. mr. barrow? mr. barrow no. mr. hill? ms. matsui? ms. matsui, no. ms. castor, no. mr. murphy? mr. murphy no. mr. mcearney no. mr. braley no. mr. welsh? mr. welsh no. mr. bart? mr. barton votes no. mr. hall? mr. upton? mr. upton, no. mr. stearns? mr. stearns no. mr. deal? mr. deal no. mr. whitfield? mr. whitfield no. mr. shimkus? mr. shimkus no. mr. shaddock? mr. shaddock no. mr. blunt? mr. blunt no. mr. williams no. mr. radanovich no. mr. pitts no. miss bono mack no. mr. walden? mr. walden no. mr. terry? mr. terry no. mr. rogers? mr. rogers no. ms. myrick? [ applause ] myrick no. mr. sullivan? mr. sullivan? mr. sullivan no. mr. murphy of pennsylvania? mr. murphy no. mr. burgess? mr. burgess no. mrs. blackbur

mr. stupak? mr. angle? mr. engel votes no. mr. green? mr. green, no. ms. deget? ms. deget, no. mrs.rs. katz, no. mr. doyle? mr. doyle votes no. ms. harman? ms. harman, no. ms. schakowsky? many schakowsky votes no. mr. gonzalez? mr. gonzalez, no. mr. enzly? mr. enzly, no. ms. baldwin? ms. baldwin, no. mr. ross? mr. wiener? mr. wiener, no. mr. matheson? mr. matheson, no. mr. butterfield? mr. butterfield, no. no. mr. bare rose? mr. barrow, no. mr. hill? mr. hill, no. ms. matsui? ms. matsui, no. mrs. christensen? mrs. christensen, no. ms. katzer? ms. katzer, no. mr. sorbet? mr. sorbet, no. mr. murphy of connecticut? mr. murphy, no. mr. spade? mr. mcnewer ne? mr. mcnewer ne votes no. ms. sutton, no. mr. braillely? mr. braillely, no. mr. welch? mr. welch, no. mr. barton? mr. barton votes aye. mr. hall? mr. hall, aey. mr. upton? mr. upton, aye. mr. stern? mr. deal? mr. deal votes aye. mr. whitfield? mr. whitfield, aye. mr. schimpf kiss? aye. mr. blunt? mr. buier? mr. buier votes aye. mr. redone vits? mr. redone vits, aye. mr. pitt? mr. pitt, aye. ms. bono-mack? aye. mr. walden? mr. walden,

mr. stupak and mrs.aldwin agreed with appear to be pro-life language in other words, if you are a pro-life member the unanimous consent request improves the bill in that respect; is that not a true statement? >> of course i am pro-life member and the statement is correct. >> i would ask my friend from oregon to not object to this. this actually improves the bill -- >> if you will allow -- if you have the time, doesn't this promote with the people of oregon voted for? to provide information about in of life alternatives? it doesn't conflict, as i understand it -- with your policy. >> it is just to find out what in the devil it does or doesn't do. and what i'm told is basically the quiet, don't ask questions, we've got to go. it's been agreed by others who've negotiated. that's great. i would just like to know from my state's perspective who wins and who loses and then i can make an informed decision. >> as the gentlelady offering the amendment have an answer? >> i take you all that your wertheim just tryi

mr. stupak end and mr.ts had a disagreement but i think there can be mental health issues resulting from pregnancies and i think this is good compromise language and with that i will withdraw my reservation. >> mr. chairman, one more time and i will shut up. okay. we have operated on both sides in reasonably good faith on health care issue. and you have been more than accommodating this week in requesting the schedule. this particular amendment in my opinion is in very bad play. it was posted on the g drive at 10:28 p.m. last night. i don't know about other members and apparently mr. green staff sits by the g drive all night long. i want to commend him for that. >> y want to make sure we read it all. >> well, i commend you but i was adjusted to withdraw this amendment. there are some good things in it, there's obviously some good things in it. but it is a little unusual for the majority for their first amendment to be an omnibus amendment that was not readily accessible under normal conditions before the ma

mr. stupak, chairman of the subcommittee on investigations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stupak: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2749 , the food safety enhancement act. as chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, i along with ranking members whitfield, shimkus, and walden have held 10 years over the past two years to examine the safety and security of our nation's food supply. this legislation takes important steps towards addressing the gaping holes in our nation's food supply by recognizing the food industry and f.d.a. must share responsibility for securing our nation's food supply. provisions grading the f.d.a. additional authorities such as quarantine, rrls recalls -- recalls, and subpoena power are all addressed. i want to thank my colleagues and friends, chairman dingell, chairman pallone, chairman waxman for all their hard work on this issue. i also wish to thank their staffs who worked diligently to see this bill come before us today. plus i want to than

mr. stupak and mrs.baldwin agreed with appear to be pro-life language in other words, if you are a pro-life member the unanimous consent request improves the bill in that respect; is that not a true statement? >> of course i am pro-life member and the statement is correct. >> i would ask my friend from oregon to not object to this. this actually improves the bill -- >> if you will allow -- if you have the time, doesn't this promote with the people of oregon voted for? to provide information about in of life alternatives? it doesn't conflict, as i understand it -- with your policy. >> it is just to find out what in the devil it does or doesn't do. and what i'm told is basically the quiet, don't ask questions, we've got to go. it's been agreed by others who've negotiated. that's great. i would just like to know from my state's perspective who wins and who loses and then i can make an informed decision. >> as the gentlelady offering the amendment have an answer? >> i take you all that your wertheim just try

mr. stupak. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk.it is two desch 001. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> its unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. mr. stupak. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, last night we were debating life issues, mr. pitt and i said we would offer for amendments every action offered in three. i offered one, he offered to. this is the fourth one. and this amendment goes correctly at the caps amendment which was approved by one or two votes here last night. and this really is the heidemann and. this is the hyde amendment being codified because the issue, and i believe that unless abortion is specifically excluded, the health benefits advisory committee and/or the secretary of health and human services, or if not them, then a court through a lawsuit brought by any abortion advocacy group will mandate coverage of abortion as an essential benefit. for example, when the federal medicaid statute was passed, nowhere in the statute did it say that abortion would be covered. by the adm

mr. stupak end and mr. pitts had a disagreement but i think there can be mental health issues resulting from pregnancies and i think this is good compromise language and with that i will withdraw my reservation. >> mr. chairman, one more time and i will shut up. okay. we have operated on both sides in reasonably good faith on health care issue. and you have been more than accommodating this week in requesting the schedule. this particular amendment in my opinion is in very bad play. it was posted on the g drive at 10:28 p.m. last night. i don't know about other members and apparently mr. green staff sits by the g drive all night long. i want to commend him for that. >> you want to make sure we read it all. >> well, i commend you but i was adjusted to withdraw this amendment. there are some good things in it, there's obviously some good things in it. but it is a little unusual for the majority for their first amendment to be an omnibus amendment that was not readily accessible under normal conditions before

mr. stupak: thank you, mr. speaker. right now just about 60% of americans receive their health insurance from their employer. but from 2000 to 2007 the annual health insurance premium for employers and employees rose from $6,628, to $12,153. the average worker share of premiums grew by 116%. and the average employer's share rose by 75% while wages only went up 4%. americans can no longer afford health insurance through the insurance company. in fact a recent study found that 73% of all americans who seek an individual insurance policy do not end up purchasing one. either because they were turned down due to pre-existing conditions or their premiums were unaffordable. mr. speaker, all americans should be be entitled to health insurance. but according to the s.e.c., security exchange commission filings, from 2000 to 2007, profits at the top 10 publicly traded health care companies rose an aston ining 428%. get the excess profit out of health care. provide health care for all americans. the speaker pro tempore: for what pu

mr. stupak. the gentleman from kansas, mr. tiahrt. the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko.the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner. the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. and the gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman. five, as each of these members represents approximately 650,000 americans, approximately 25 million denied their right to be represented because the restrictive rules supported by the rule from the gentleman from wisconsin pleasure obey, failed to follow the precedents and procedures of the house. mr. obey was correct that a true representative democracy is impossible when 25,350,000 americans have their representative of congress shut out of the legislative process. seven, as a result of their restrictive rule implemented by the democratic majority, the house was not allowed to vote or debate issues such as an amendment that would reduce spend big 1.7%, saving taxpayers $2.9 million. an amendment to prohibit an eligible individual from receiving food stamps, an amendment to end taxpayer subsidies for procedures. an amendment to prevent federal employees from be

mr. stupak for authoring it and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. klein: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. smith: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. klein: mr. speaker, just one minute of time just to close. thank you, mr. speaker. and again i would like to thank mr. stupak, also having grown up in cleveland, ohio, and right over the border from canada, had the opportunity to spend many great years visiting. also would like to acknowledge the consul general from miami, marcy grossman who had the opportunity to swrift recently before she left to return. but, again, this is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate our two countries on this special canada day. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yi

mr. stupak of michigan, mr. smith of new jersey, mr. costello of illinois, mr. pitts of pennsylvania, mr. marshall of georgia, and ms. bachmann of minnesota. we simply requested we strike the word federal from the bill saying no funds shall be made veilable to provide for abortions. that rule -- that amendment was not made in order by the rule. mr. flake of arizona has tried to substitute one of his amendments that were made in order for this amendment so that we could have a clean up or down vote. so the whole purpose of the motion to recommit that i intend to offer will be to get a clean up or down vote on this issue. now, currently the bill allows for public funds to be spent on abortions. it does limit federal funds, but all this money goes into the same bank account. it is a bookkeeping exercise to try to sort it out. it is impossible to sort it all out. what it means is there will be no prohibitions on abortions in the district of columbia in this bill. in fact, tax dollars will be providing abortions in the bill. regardless of whether it's federal or loca

mr. stupak: thank you, mr. speaker. right now just about 60% of americans receive their health insurance from their employer. but from 2000 to 2007 the annual health insurance premium for employers and employees rose from $6,628, to $12,153. the average worker share of premiums grew by 116%. and the average employer's share rose by 75% while wages only went up 4%. americans can no longer afford health insurance through the insurance company. in fact a recent study found that 73% of all americans who seek an individual insurance policy do not end up purchasing one. either because they were turned down due to pre-existing conditions or their premiums were unaffordable. mr. speaker, all americans should be be entitled to health insurance. but according to the s.e.c., security exchange commission filings, from 2000 to 2007, profits at the top 10 publicly traded health care companies rose an aston ining 428%. get the excess profit out of health care. provide health care for all americans. the speaker pro tempore: for what pu

mr. stupak, no. mr. angle. mr. angle, no. mr. green. mr. green no. ms. degett. mrs. cap. mrs. cap, no.doyle. mr. doyle no. ms. shakowski, no. mr. gonzales. mr. ensley. no. ms. baldwin. ms. baldwin, no. mr. ross. mr. ross no. bl weaner? mr. weaner, no. mr. mathison. mr. butterfield. mr. butterfield no. mr. malazon, aye. mr. barrow, mr. barrow aye. mr. hill. mr. hill no. ms. matsui. ms. matsui, no. mrs. christianson. mrs. christianson no. ms. caster. ms. caster, no. mr. sarbain. mr. sarbain no. mr. murphy of connecticut. mr. murphy no. mr. space. mr. space no. mr. mcnurney. mr. mcnurney no. ms. sutton. ms. sutton, no. mr. braillely. mr. braillely no. mr. welsh, mr. welsh no. mr. barton. mr. barton votes aye. mr. hall. mr. hall aye. mr. upton. mr. upton aye. mr. sterns. mr. sterns votes aye. mr. deal. mr. deal aye. mr. whitfield. mr. whitfield aye. mr. shimkus, mr. shimkus aye. mr. shatti gb. mr. blunt. mr. blunt aye. mr. bowyer. mr. bowyer aye. mr. radovonich. mr. hadovonich, aye. mr. walden, mr. walden aye. mr. terry. mr. terry aye. mr. rogers. mr. rogers aye. mrs. myrick, mrs. myrikk a

mr. stupak and i requested that an amendment reinstating the mexico city policy be made in order so that the full house would have the opportunity to vote up or down on this critically important issue. this year's foreign ops appropriations bill increases population control funding by a whooping 40% over the 2008 levels to a record $648 million. our amendment would simply ensure that this huge allocation of taxpayer grant money not be awarded to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions on demand or lobby for abortion on demand in developing countries. today, most african and latin countries protect the lives of their unborn children and the real threat to those laws and policies are coming from the united states and european nongovernmental organizations and the money behind them. indeed, prior to january, mr. speaker, the pro-life mexico city policy guaranteed that unborn children in asia, africa, latin america and elsewhere not be put at risk of death by the n.g.o.'s that we fund. every human life is precious, mr. speaker, and sacred and worthy of respect. no one, n

mr. whitfield yields back. does anyone else wish to comment on the whitfield/stupak amendment. e'll call into question of the amendment. all those in favor say aye. those opposed. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. an amendment on the majority side. >> mr. chairman, i have three amendments at the desk. engoal 6, engel 5. >> asked that they be considered together? >> yes. >> the clerk will report the amendments. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature offer aias as the amendments -- i ask that the amendment be considered as read. >> they are. >> he is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> thank you. today i am offering to amendments. the first is with my good friend in california we want to expand import and child health quality improvement provisions to medicaid populations which are traditional bearing women in the newborn. as we live to improve value, our amendment will help us support the goal. medicaid now pays for 43% in the country. 29% of hospital charges to medicaid are the child-bearing women and newborns. in fact, material and newb

stupak asked their executives if they would change their ways. >> let me ask each of our c.e.o.s this question, starting with you, mr.would you commit today that your company will never rescind another policy unless there was intentional fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation in the application? >> i would not commit to that. >> how about you, mr. collins? would you commit to not to rescind any policy unless there is an intentional fraudulent misrepresentation? >> no, sir. we follow the state laws and regulations. and we would not stipulate to that. that's not consistent with each state's laws. >> how about you, mr. sassi? would you commit that your company will never rescind another policy unless there was an intentional fraud, misrepresentation? >> no, i can't commit to that. the intentional standard is not the law of the land in the majority of states. >> doesn't it bother you that people are going to die, because you insist on reviewing a policy that somebody took out in good faith and forgot to tell you that they were being treated for acne? doesn't that bother you? >> yes, sir, it does. and we regret the necessity

mr. shimkus, and i want to express my gratitude to him. i also want to express my fwrattude to chairman waxman, chairman stupak and chairman pallone, the legislative and appropriation and investigative committee, chairman of the commerce committee for the outstanding work they did in preparing this legislation. also representative degette and representative sutton. my colleagues, mr. barton, mr. deal, and mr. shimkus on the minority side have worked very well and carefully, thoughtfully with us. and i owe them a debt of thanks and gratitude. staff members like rachel and eric have worked long on this as well as my friend, virgil miller. the agriculture committee has been wise advisors and helpers in coming to the bill that can be agreed on by the two committees. representative levin, chair of the subcommittee of -- on trade of ways and means committee has been extremely important. as has representative delauro -- chair of the appropriations subcommittee. and jenny ireland, former staff member of this committee, has been of enormous help in the drafting of this legislation. we have a long list of supporters. the obama administration, grocery manufa